Oaths and Affirmations

Lord Darroch of Kew made the solemn affirmation and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

International Health Regulations: Amendments
 - Question

Lord Strathcarron: To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the warning by independent WHO experts at the Brownstone Institute that amendments to the International Health Regulations to be made at its forthcoming meeting in May 2024 may contravene Article 55 of those Regulations.

Lord Markham: The Government are satisfied that negotiations on amendments to the International Health Regulations comply with Article 55 of those regulations. Member states proposed amendments, which were communicated to all member states in December 2022 and then posted online. Since then, member states have been negotiating the proposals. As per Article 55, the timeline is well in advance of the World Health Assembly this May, where they are due to be considered for agreement.

Lord Strathcarron: I thank my noble friend the Minister for the reply. Irrespective of the WHO’s current interpretation of its own rules, the fact remains that Article 55(2) clearly says it is required to give member states four months’ written notice before the amendments are agreed at the end of this month, and it has clearly failed to do so. Bearing this in mind, and that the Government have been less than transparent about the UK’s aims in these negotiations, and bearing in mind the WHO’s woeful performance in the Covid pandemic, does the Minister agree that, regardless of the legal position, it would be wise to delay the votes until the next WHA so that we can have proper parliamentary scrutiny of what the Government are signing us up to?

Lord Markham: The key thing that we are looking at here, which I would hope that all of us could agree on, is that we will not agree to anything in this process which impacts our sovereignty as a country and our ability to react to a pandemic in a way that is appropriate for this country and this Government. I hope that we can all rely on that, and that is very much our approach to these negotiations.

Lord Allan of Hallam: My Lords, objective 2 of the UK’s Global Health Framework says that the Government will:
“Reform global health architecture, including through a strengthened World Health Organization, driving more coherent governance and collaboration across the international system”.
Aside from producing a winning sentence for policy buzzword bingo, can the Minister point to any specific global health architecture wins that the Government have had in the year since that policy was published?

Lord Markham: I am not sure in what year that policy was published. However, I can talk about how, when we were president of the G7 in 2021, we led the calls to donate vaccines on a worldwide basis, which led to 1.2 billion doses being donated to countries  all around the world, led by Britain’s initiative with AstraZeneca. That was great global co-operation and we can feel very proud of it.

Lord Watts: My Lords, the Government said that they would learn the lessons from the Covid problems. How have they tackled the issue of production of equipment that was needed for Covid but which we did not have? The Government promised to make sure that we will have it next time. Can he give us an update on that?

Lord Markham: Of course, we covered much of this when we had a Question on 15 April around this. This is about making sure that we have the diagnostic capability—which we have—and the ability to scale up. We have made a £125 million-fund available for precisely the issue that the noble Lord mentions, so we have the mothballed capacity ready to operate at quick notice.

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere: My Lords, on 14 January 2020 the World Health Organization declared that there was no evidence of person-to-person transmission of the Covid virus. It was parroting the line of the Chinese Government, which at that time were terrified of any investigation of the lab leak theory. Does my noble friend the Minister worry that giving more powers of co-ordination and control to this body will mean less diversity, more homogeneity and the suppression of any attempt to be a Sweden or a Florida, or anyone else who might buck the consensus and thereby, God forbid, suggest that these extreme and draconian lockdowns may not have been the best policy response?

Lord Markham: We are talking about two very different things here. One is ensuring that, as a country, we are armed with the information as quickly as possible so that we can act; getting the genomic sequencing of the original strain was vital for us to be able to prepare a vaccine so quickly, so that information sharing is vital. In terms of the impact on our ability to act as a sovereign Government, that is something very different; it is key and understood, and the Covid inquiry now is all about learning lessons. As my noble friend knows, I have personal views about that second lockdown: we need to be looking at the wider impact of that second lockdown in areas such as mental health and other areas in which there was an impact on children, but that is a matter that will always be for the UK Government to decide on.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, the problems that arose during the Covid pandemic in respect of the WHO were because the WHO was let down by one of its members and not properly informed quickly enough of the symptoms that were occurring in that country. There is no point in blaming it when the blame rests with the collective membership of the WHO, which now needs to be repaired. Does the Minister not agree that postponing that repair work will not serve our or anyone else’s purpose?

Lord Markham: I do agree: I do not think that it would help to postpone it. I had this exact conversation with the American Health Secretary,   who is very aware that we are getting nearer and nearer to an American election and, for all the countries to be able to co-operate fully, the timing is right to reach a solution now. However, we will not reach an agreement at any cost or anything which might impact our sovereignty.

Baroness Merron: My Lords, the Brownstone Institute, to which the noble Lord’s Question refers, was set up to work against Covid restrictions and lists articles which argue that Covid-19 vaccines do not work, that children should not be vaccinated and that vaccine mandates compare with the crimes of the Soviet gulag. On this basis, perhaps the Minister would like to comment on what note he should be taking of the Brownstone Institute, if any. What assessment has been made of the impact of dangerous propaganda like this on the low take-up rates of vaccinations that we see among minority ethnic groups and where there are regional and social disparities?

Lord Markham: I thank the noble Baroness. All Members of the House, when we had a good Question on the take-up of Covid vaccines, agreed that information supporting the take-up is a vital health message to get across. To any detractors, I say very firmly that it is not the view of the Government, and I know that it is not the view of nearly all noble Lords.

Lord Moylan: My Lords, returning to the treaty, am I right in thinking that it contains provision that envisages a role for the WHO in vaccine certification? If that is the case, how would that have played out when we wished to roll out our own vaccine very speedily? Would we have had to wait for WHO certification?

Lord Markham: Again, my noble friend will agree with me that our ability to assess the vaccine more quickly than any other country and roll it out very quickly was a key asset for the UK. Clearly, we will not do anything that will put that at risk.

Period Poverty
 - Question

Baroness Verma: To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the scale of period poverty.

Baroness Barran: My Lords, the Government do not have specific data on period poverty, but we understand that women and girls are impacted by the cost of period products. That is why we abolished the so-called tampon tax and ensured that period underwear receives the same zero rate of VAT. We have a scheme for schools and colleges, with free products available for all who need them so that periods are not a barrier to education. All hospital patients can also receive free products.

Baroness Verma: My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register, as chair of Empower and of UN Women UK. I thank my noble friend the Minister for the scheme that she mentioned. Will she confirm that it will continue post election in a new Government? It is critical that young females get access to sanitary products throughout their school life. Secondly, what discussions are taking place with retailers on reducing the cost of sanitary products, particularly for low-income households where there may be multiple female house- holders?

Baroness Barran: With regard to the first part of my noble friend’s question, we are aware of how important the scheme is in schools, with 99% of secondary schools having placed an order since it began. The current formulation of the scheme is planned up to summer 2024, but I know that the department is in the process of confirming plans for its future. On our work with retailers, we were concerned when we abolished the tampon tax on sanitary products that not all of that benefit was passed on to consumers. That is why we are monitoring the impact on reusable period underwear, which is also now zero-rated for VAT, and making sure that that is passed on.

Baroness Thornton: I thank the Minister and the Government for the scheme in our secondary schools; we have 99% take-up, so we can safely say that it is important and welcome. However, period poverty affects one in five women across the UK. Given the cost of living and the rise in prices, it is a health and gender-based injustice, with increasing numbers struggling to afford what is an essential healthcare product. The Government agreed to work collaboratively with a range of organisations to create a period poverty taskforce in 2019, but the group has not met since the pandemic. Does it intend to resume, and if so, when? Secondly, how does the programme for secondary schools deal with school holidays?

Baroness Barran: I am more than happy to follow up with the department on the noble Baroness’s first point, and I will respond to her in writing about our plans to meet the group she referred to. With regard to school holidays, the House will be aware of the Government’s enormous support for people on lower incomes, which is, obviously, available to all families during the holidays.

Lord Ranger of Northwood: My Lords, on this day I am sure that the House will remember the tireless campaigner, Kris Hallenga, who had breast cancer and passed away recently. She set up the charity, CoppaFeel!, which reached out to millions using her creativity, sense of fun and ingenuity to ensure that young women were made aware of and took on the challenges of breast cancer. She was diagnosed at the age of 23 and given a life expectancy of two years, but survived cancer for 15 years. Could we take a leaf out of Kris’s book in looking to engage young women on the issue of period poverty, using social media and channels that can reach them so that we help them engage and listen to them?

Baroness Barran: My noble friend makes a good and poignant point about talking to young people in their own language and on their own terms and, as he says, using social media to reach them. We know that part of the issue with period poverty and wider women’s health matters may be a financial one that is a barrier to accessing products, but equally if not more important is the stigma associated with raising issues like this, which we need to try to remove as quickly as possible.

Baroness Burt of Solihull: My Lords, according to the pressure group Bloody Good Period, in the workplace, two-thirds of people who menstruate do not have access to the basic essentials they need, costing British industry £3.3 billion in lost workdays. We often feel a bit squeamish talking about these matters, but what will the Government do to make employers aware of the inequality that so many of their employees face, and of how easily and cheaply productivity could be increased?

Baroness Barran: The department is well aware that women in the workplace miss extra days of work, suffer pain and stay in the workplace in considerable discomfort. Our experience is that employers often want to help but are not always very confident about how to do so, be it period-related or menopause-related issues. We are working with a range of businesses and professional membership bodies to identify how employers can best support women’s wider reproductive health and share their good practice.

Baroness Smith of Llanfaes: My Lords, we should be steering away from the idea that we need to address only period poverty, but instead provide period dignity for all, which would also address period poverty. What I mean by period dignity is achieving parity with toilet paper: wherever toilet paper is provided by the public or private sector, period products should also be provided in the cubicle. Have the Government carried out any research on best practice in other countries on how to provide period dignity for all?

Baroness Barran: I am not aware that we have done international research in this area, but I am aware, as I mentioned in my initial Answer, that in schools, hospitals and prisons now there is free access to period products. Many workplaces offer that also.

Baroness Goldie: My Lords, I am not often given to commending the Scottish Government, but as your Lordships may be aware, particularly the ladies present, they have introduced a universal system to try to address both period poverty and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, rightly says, period dignity. I wonder if there would be any benefit in a constructive engagement with the Scottish Government to understand how their scheme works, what it costs and if there are any lessons to be learned.

Baroness Barran: The department works regularly with the devolved Administrations, and we are always happy to learn from others.

Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge: My Lords, 16.7 million sick days are taken annually due to period-related symptoms. What are the Government doing to encourage more scientific research in this area, in order to help the 47% of women who suffer from severe period pain every month?

Baroness Barran: Last month, the National Institute for Health and Care Research announced more than £100 million of funding to 20 policy research units, including a new unit dedicated to reproductive health. This will undertake research on a number of areas, including menstrual health, gynaecological conditions and the menopause. In addition, the Office for National Statistics is also planning to investigate the impact of period problems and endometriosis on women’s participation and progress at work.

Lord Cashman: My Lords, may I ask the Government to undertake an educational programme for young men and boys—and, indeed, older men—on period pain and period poverty?

Baroness Barran: We already have a programme, called RSHE, which every child will follow and that absolutely speaks to the noble Lord’s point. The current statutory guidance makes it clear that all pupils should be taught the facts about the menstrual cycle, and we have developed a series of teacher training modules to support schools in delivering this.

Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles
 - Question

Lord Lexden: To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of Ireland about their approach to addressing the legacy of the Troubles in Northern Ireland since April 1998.

Lord Caine: My Lords, at the last two British-Irish Intergovernmental Conferences, the Secretary of State and I pressed the Irish Government to co-operate fully with both the Omagh inquiry and the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to provide information for victims and families who desire it. The Secretary of State also wrote to the Tánaiste in January, challenging the Irish Government’s own approach to addressing legacy issues, including the number of Troubles-related prosecutions brought in Ireland since April 1998.

Lord Lexden: My Lords, are we not entitled to expect that the Irish Republic, which we have always sought to treat in a spirit of good neighbourliness, should take some steps to acknowledge that many terrorist atrocities during the Troubles in Ulster were assisted by the planning that took place in its territory and the refuge it provided to some involved in the most dreadful crimes? How vividly I remember the  despair at the constant refusal of extradition requests brought to Airey Neave, as Conservative spokesman on Northern Ireland, long ago when I worked for him. Are we not also entitled to take strong exception to the Irish Government’s decision to bring a case against us in the European Court of Human Rights? Granted that the independent commission to deal with issues arising from the legacy of the Troubles became fully operational on 1 May, under the chairmanship of a most distinguished retired judge, does my noble friend agree that the Irish Government should drop their interstate case and focus on co-operating fully with the new legacy body, setting aside the controversies that surrounded its origins?

Lord Caine: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, who has vast experience of Northern Ireland matters. He makes a number of extremely important points regarding the role of successive Irish Governments during the Troubles. On the interstate case, the Government profoundly regret the decision of the Irish Government to bring this unnecessary and unhelpful case against the UK, particularly when these matters are likely to be dealt with by the domestic courts long before the case ever reaches Strasbourg. For many families, effective information recovery will require the co-operation of the Irish authorities, and the Government therefore encourage the Irish Government to co-operate fully with the new commission to help provide information to families who want it.

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick: My Lords, does the Minister agree about the importance of adherence to the rule of law, and that the legacy Act is considered by many to violate the principle of the rule of law? In view of the various legacy cases, judgments and pending cases, what action will the Government take to ensure that victims and survivors are protected through the repeal of this legislation, in particular the immunity provisions, which have caused immense consternation throughout the wider community in Northern Ireland?

Lord Caine: My Lords, while I completely respect the views of the noble Baroness, I do not share her characterisation of the legislation. She will be aware that the High Court in Belfast, in its recent judgment, found that the new legacy body, the independent commission, would be able to operate independently of government, and would be able to carry out fully effective Article 2-compliant investigations. It also found that the disclosure obligations on the state meant that the new body is likely to be more effective than the current mechanisms in providing information and answers to victims and survivors.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, the Omagh bomb was the single biggest terrorist attack in the Troubles, costing 29 people their lives, including a woman pregnant with twins. It was also a cross-border incursion, with terrorists coming from the Irish Republic, where they returned after the bombing. I simply ask the Minister why he believes the Irish Government are still refusing to hold their own inquiry into the bombing. What can they possibly be hiding?

Lord Caine: My Lords, I am grateful to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, for his question. We all remember vividly where we were when we heard the news of that awful atrocity in August 1998, and I pay tribute to Michael Gallagher and the other Omagh families who have pursued their case with great dignity and tenacity. As I said in my opening Answer, I raised this directly with the Irish Foreign Minister and Tánaiste at the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference last Monday, and I am pleased that he committed to full Irish Government co-operation with the Omagh bombing inquiry. The Government’s focus is on ensuring that the inquiry has every chance of success, and the Irish Government’s role in that is crucial.

Lord Murphy of Torfaen: My Lords, it is not just the Irish Government who were opposed to the very controversial legacy legislation. Every single Northern Ireland political party opposed it. The Minister knows that you can move in Northern Ireland, eventually, only by consensus. It seems to me that there has to be more discussion with the Irish Government, who are a joint guarantor of the Good Friday agreement after all. Now that the Assembly is up and running, surely it is time to engage every party in that Assembly to have a consensus on the way forward on what is very vexed legislation.

Lord Caine: My Lords, what is really important, now that the independent commission is operational as of last Wednesday, is that we give it the time and space to carry out investigations and do its work in delivering answers for victims and survivors. I must point out that I read the interview with the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the Irish News last week, and what was clear, once I managed to decipher the complete muddle in that interview, was that the party opposite has no coherent plan for dealing with legacy matters whatever, other than taking us back to square one.

Baroness O'Loan: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the legacies of the Troubles is the high level of trauma and PTSD suffered by victims? The answers to the questions on the legacy Act did not include the Minister informing the House that major provisions of that Act have now been held by the High Court in Belfast to be in breach of national and international law. In those circumstances, can the Minister tell the House what proposals the Government have to provide support to those who have been further traumatised by the passing of this Act and the consequential termination of normal processes, such as inquests, many of which could not proceed because of the refusal of the Northern Ireland Office and MI5 to grant disclosure of materials, even in the form of gists prepared by the PSNI? What support will be available to families who have attended up to 40 hearings trying to get that information and whose inquests are now closed?

Lord Caine: I thank the noble Baroness for her question. As I said in an earlier answer, the High Court in Belfast found that the legislation is compatible with human rights law in respect of independence and  the ability to carry out effective investigations. To take her point about disclosure, the disclosure provisions offer the prospect of better outcomes than current mechanisms.

Baroness Suttie: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the ongoing uncertainty caused by the Government’s appeal against the High Court ruling on immunity is merely prolonging the pain and uncertainty for victims and their families who have already waited so long for justice?

Lord Caine: The noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree. The commission, as she knows, became fully operational last week and is now proceeding with its work under the distinguished leadership of Sir Declan Morgan, the former Lord Chief Justice, and Peter Sheridan, a former senior police officer.

Lord Godson: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister reflect on the remarks of Michael McDowell TD, a former Irish Attorney-General and Minister for Justice between 1999 and 2007, as quoted in the Irish Times last November, when he reminded us that the Republic’s approach to legacy has always been based on the indemnities presently being condemned by some noble Lords in this House? Will he also add something: that the approach of the Belfast agreement was to honour and care for innocent victims and to support their right to remember as well as to move on and contribute to a changed society? Does my noble friend the Minister therefore agree that the UK’s current policy is consistent with the Belfast agreement in all its aspects?

Lord Caine: I agree with my noble friend that the legislation is absolutely consistent with the Belfast agreement, to which we remain resolutely committed as a Government. It is worth recalling that both the UK and Irish Governments have previously decided to make compromises on established criminal justice processes in the hope of moving the process forward, including decommissioning, prisoner releases and the search for the location of victims’ remains. As my noble friend made clear, the Irish Government’s position is hard to reconcile in relation to the positions they have adopted on these matters in the past and, indeed, their own record of dealing with Troubles-related cases within their own jurisdiction, where, to the best of my knowledge, there has not been a single prosecution since April 1998.

Faith Schools: Impact of Removing Admissions Cap
 - Question

Baroness Burt of Solihull: To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of removing the admissions cap on state-funded faith schools on community integration and cohesion.

Baroness Barran: My Lords, the admissions cap has not significantly increased the diversity of intake in faith-designated free schools, and it has prevented providers such as the Catholic Church, which attracts a more diverse intake, opening new schools. All faith-designated free schools are required to demonstrate their commitment to community cohesion and how they promote fundamental British values.

Baroness Burt of Solihull: My Lords, this policy would increase religious discrimination in schools that the British taxpayer is paying for. Many parents will be paying for local schools from which their own children will be excluded. It will diminish diversity and inclusiveness, increase racial segregation and further disadvantage poorer families, non-religious families, and families of the “wrong” religion. It is hard to find an upside to this, so why are the Government proposing such a retrograde step when they supported the 50% cap until only a short time ago?

Baroness Barran: The Government do not see it as a retrograde step and I do not accept the description that the noble Baroness makes of our faith schools, which are extremely inclusive, many working with other schools in their local area, and which produce some of the best academic results in the country.

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that it has never been Tory policy to advocate 100% faith schools? No Tory Education Secretary since 1945 has advocated them. They have preferred the model of the Church of England schools, which welcome children of no faith and all faiths. Indeed, I went to such a school myself during the war; my primary school was Holy Trinity in Southport, which was a community school. It so happened that my closest friend at that school was the single Jewish boy, who was a refugee. We became very close friends. I learned from then on that Jews, Christians, Muslims and Hindus at school should all study alongside each other, play with each other, eat with each other and go home with each other as members of a multicultural society.
Does the Minister realise that, if this goes through, it will be not only Catholics but Muslims who apply for independent, free faith schools. Does she really consider that appropriate in our country at this time in our history? This is an absurd proposal and it should not feature in any way in the manifesto of the Conservative Party at the election.

Baroness Barran: With the greatest respect to my noble friend, I think there may be a slight misunderstanding, so it might perhaps help the House if I explain what the Government are proposing. They are proposing to make no change whatever to existing schools, faith schools and non-faith schools. The 6,700 faith schools that exist today will not be affected by what is proposed. What is proposed is a consultation on whether there should be a restriction on free schools—new schools—that are opened with a faith designation. So far, 95 such schools have opened.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I welcome the removing of the admissions cap and the explanation the Minister has given to the House. Will she firmly rebut the erroneous idea that these schools fail to promote integration, diversity and cohesion and confirm that they are the most ethnically diverse in the country? In England, 45.5% of their pupils are from ethnic minorities, compared with 37% in the state sector, and 50% of the pupils educated in those schools are from the most deprived backgrounds.
Perhaps I may share with the noble Baroness the work of the Liverpool John Moores University’s foundation for citizenship, which I founded. We saw outstanding examples of schools promoting virtues, values, duties, responsibilities and the wider common good. The Government’s decision to build on those achievements and prevent such schools having to turn away members of their own community is to be greatly welcomed. I know that many in the country will do so.

Baroness Barran: I thank the noble Lord for his comments and echo his remarks about the ethnic diversity in our faith schools. I agree with him that faith schools can and do offer the very important tenets of our major religions including, of course, tolerance.

Baroness Twycross: My Lords, the rationale behind the proposed change to the state-funded faith schools admissions cap by the Government is in large part, as the noble Baroness has said, to increase the number of school places available. Has the department made any estimate of how many more places will be made available and when? What will the Government do to ensure that school places are established where they are needed most and for families whose children most desperately need the best start in life?

Baroness Barran: The number of additional places will depend on levels of basic need where there are not enough school places available. The noble Baroness well knows that in some parts of the country we have the opposite challenge at the moment. That also answers the second part of her question; it will be where there are population pressures.
I would like to take the opportunity in answering the noble Baroness’s question to pick up on the second part of the consultation. If agreed, it would mean that faith schools were able to have a faith designation. I know the House agrees with me that we need to move faster to make sure there is provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities.

Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, Church of England schools will continue our long tradition of seeking to serve the common good and welcoming a huge diversity of people; we are glad to do that. The Minister has spoken about the huge problem of there not being enough special educational needs places. If I have understood this correctly, it means that this will be a new possibility. We in the Church of England would be keen to play our part to help with this, but one issue is the funding available for it, which makes it very difficult to offer. Alongside this announcement, what consideration have His Majesty’s Government  given to providing additional funding for those SEND places, which we hope can release more energy into that deprived area?

Baroness Barran: To be clear, and to avoid upsetting my noble friend Lord Baker one more time, the changes we are proposing in relation to special schools will not affect eligibility. Eligibility for a place in a special school will be dependent on a child’s education, health and care plan. The Government fund all the capital costs associated with developing a new free school. The funding is provided through the local authority for children with an education, health and care plan.

Baroness Berridge: My Lords, should we not be proud that the new schools that we have opened since 2010 include Muslim, Hindu and Sikh faith-based schools, which were the first in the country, as well as additional Church of England schools? Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that, in line with previous suggestions for changing the admissions arrangements for new free schools, what is proposed is just that the admissions criteria that apply to existing Catholic schools will be the same for a new Catholic free school? There will be no change to the admissions policy for Catholic schools; it would just be the same policy across the board.

Baroness Barran: I am very happy to confirm that.

Lord Storey: My Lords, the Minister will know that we are developing, one hopes, a successful, multicultural society, with children of different faiths and none having the opportunity to learn and work and play together. Does she not think it important that in all our faith schools there should be children of different faiths?

Baroness Barran: The vast majority of our faith schools have children of different faiths. It is typically only in schools for the smallest-minority faiths that one has a concentration of children of those faiths. This is a longer debate that I am happy to have with the noble Lord, but parental choice is fundamental. We are very pleased to see the volume of activity that faith schools undertake with other faith schools of different denominations.

Israel and Gaza
 - Private Notice Question

The Lord Bishop of St Albans: Asked by The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask His Majesty’s Government (1) what representations they are making to the Government of Israel in light of a potential new offensive by Israeli forces, and (2) what humanitarian aid and support of essential services they plan to provide to the region.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, we want an end to the fighting as soon as  possible. Well over six months since Hamas’s terror attack against Israel, it is appalling that hostages are still being held. Too many civilians are also dying in Gaza, and this weekend Hamas rockets killed four IDF soldiers and injured others. As we have said, the fastest way to end the conflict is to secure a deal which gets the hostages out and allows for a pause in the fighting in Gaza. It is then that we must turn that pause into a sustainable, permanent ceasefire.
Regarding the situation in Rafah, our position has been consistent. We are deeply concerned about the prospect of a military incursion, given the number of civilians sheltering there and its importance for delivering aid. It and other crossing points, including Kerem Shalom, must be reopened quickly to allow essential aid in. Israel must facilitate immediate, uninterrupted humanitarian access in the south, including for the entry of fuel, and ensure the protection of civilians and safe passage for those who wish to leave Rafah. As yet, we have not seen a credible plan to protect civilians.
We are following closely the latest developments around hostage talks and, at this stage, while events are still shifting quickly, we will not provide a detailed running commentary. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we want a deal agreed that will ensure the release of hostages and a pause in fighting. A generous offer was on the table last week, proposed by Egypt and accepted by Israel. We need now to see Hamas also accept the viable deal so that we can start building the momentum towards a permanent, sustained ceasefire. In parallel, we will continue to push as hard as we can to get much-needed aid into Gaza via vital land routes alongside sea and air to alleviate the suffering. Israel has now committed to significant steps to increase the amount of aid getting into Gaza. We now need to see this turned into action to ensure that aid actually gets over the border and is safely and properly distributed. I—

Lord Collins of Highbury: This is supposed to be a PNQ.

Bishop of St Albans: I thank the Minister for his reply. My concern is with the immediate humanitarian crisis facing civilians in the Gaza Strip, with Israeli forces now in control of the southern border crossing. What representations have His Majesty’s Government made about getting more fuel, food supplies and medicines in? Are there any other avenues by which we can get aid into the country to alleviate the immediate suffering?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I seek the House’s indulgence. The reason my Answer was slightly more lengthy is that it has been a very long working weekend on this and I wanted to give details. In answer directly to the right reverend Prelate, I say that we are imploring Israel to ensure that the crossings that were shut are opened immediately, including in Rafah. Noble Lords will know that the southern border on the Palestinian side is currently controlled by the IDF. My noble friend Lord Cameron had a conversation with the President of Israel this morning, and just a little while ago I also had a conversation with the chief negotiator of Qatar.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, the Minister has made the case: there should have been a government Statement today on this subject and we should have had more time to discuss it.
I ask two basic questions. Does the Minister not think that an attack on Rafah presents a clear risk of a serious breach of international humanitarian law? Can he confirm whether he or the Foreign Secretary have received any assessment—not legal advice, but any assessment or policy advice—from FCDO officials that the threshold has already been met? We need a clear view on that. This changes things dramatically. Also, as the right reverend Prelate said, aid is surely important. When will the Government resume funding to UNRWA? There is an immediate and urgent need for it.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: On the noble Lord’s second point, there were two reports set up by the Secretary-General. One—the Colonna report—has reported back; the other oversight report is being reported shortly. As the Prime Minister said, those will be reviewed. I accept the principle, as I have said repeatedly, of the important role UNRWA plays, particularly in Gaza. On the earlier point, of course this is evolving. We are receiving regular information. I have already made the point about the importance of the escalation into Rafah on a number of occasions. It needs to be immediately resolved, because there are now 600,000 children in Rafah—almost 50% of those in Rafah are children. We need to ensure their safety and security and at the moment, as I said earlier, we have not been reassured at all about any detailed plans on where these people will move. Mawasi is pretty barren land, but that is being suggested as a place where they may shelter.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Israeli Defense Forces advising 100,000 civilians, the majority of whom will be women and children, to move to a so-called humanitarian zone where there will be no support for food, shelter, medicine or security is a breach of international humanitarian law? Further, does he agree that, given the fact that the World Food Programme’s executive director said on Sunday that there is now famine north of Gaza, for the IDF to refuse entry of UNRWA staff to provide life-saving assistance is also a breach of international humanitarian law? Has the Foreign Secretary communicated that to the Israeli Government? What actions will the UK Government take, as it is a fact that there is no justification for the UK to replenish licences for military equipment and arms to the Israeli Government, given the situation? What are the consequences for the warnings that have been provided by Ministers, including that of the Foreign Secretary to me on 12 March? There is very little point in having a conversation if there are no consequences for actions.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, on the issue of consequences for actions, we have raised a number of concerns directly with the Israeli Government. I am sure the noble Lord saw, for example, on the issue of settler violence, that specific sanctions were issued on Friday, including against key settler organisations.  These were a direct response. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we are making representations. Israel is a friend but, at the same time, the candid nature of our friendship means that we will not desist from action, as we have demonstrated. On the noble Lord’s earlier points, of course we are keeping all elements of our policy under review. What is really important, as I tried to get across earlier, is that we should be unrelenting in ensuring that aid reaches where it should and that there is a cessation in the fighting immediately. There is a deal on the table and I assure all noble Lords that we are working strenuously on the UK side in diplomacy to make sure that it becomes something that can last and be sustainable.

Lord Pannick: My Lords, as the Minister has recognised, it is vital to remember the hostages. Does he share my disgust that, after seven months, Hamas is still holding 133 hostages—some of them elderly, some of them children, all of them detained no doubt in appalling conditions—and using them as a bargaining chip in flagrant breach of international law? Will the Government redouble their efforts to do all they can to secure the release of these unfortunate people?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I give the noble Lord that assurance. I have on a number of occasions, as have the Prime Minister and my noble friend the Foreign Secretary, met directly with hostage families—sadly, I would rather I did not have to meet with them on a weekly or fortnightly basis. We give that added assurance, and have seen the real emotion gripping the streets of Tel Aviv and elsewhere. It is time to bring the hostages home, get the aid in and stop the fighting.

Lord Clarke of Nottingham: My Lords, we are very near to the prospect of aid being delivered by sea once the Americans have finished the construction of the quay that they are undertaking. Have the Government made any progress in reassuring us about the orderly and safe distribution of aid by that route when the quay is ready? What is their present position on direct British involvement, including the use of British troops if necessary, to work on proper distribution of that aid to the people we hope will be able to receive it?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My noble friend is right to raise the maritime route, and I assure him that we are involved in all elements of that process. We were involved in the initial call for that route, and there are developments under way. On the issue of safe distribution within Gaza—that is the key component of this—we want to ensure that we do not see the tragedies repeated against those agencies working on the ground that we saw with World Central Kitchen and other UN agencies, where workers were directly in the line of fire and were killed. They have the expertise. We are looking at all the dynamics on the best way to support the British operation in this international effort. As details evolve, I will share them with your Lordships’ House.

Baroness Hussein-Ece: My Lords, the Government repeatedly said that the invasion of Rafah should not happen and that it was a red line, as did the  Americans. That invasion has already started, with casualties resulting from families constantly being bombed. As my noble friend pointed out, the place where the Israeli Government say they will evacuate 100,000 people—mostly children—to is not fit for human habitation. I know that the Minister is working extremely hard on this—I have enormous sympathy for the work he is doing and pay tribute to him—but conversations do not seem to be enough. What other action can the British Government take? They have been very silent over the weekend; I did not hear or read any statements from the Foreign Secretary.
Furthermore, do the Government support the work of the ICC, the ICJ and the chief prosecutor, who is a British subject and is facing threats to himself and his family from Republican senators? I am glad that international law has been cited on this Question because the ICC is trying to uphold international law. Are we expressing our support for international law at any of the international courts?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: On the noble Baroness’s earlier point, I have spoken proactively about the deep concerns. I know the lay of the land on Mawasi regarding the proposal to move. There are 1.4 million people in Rafah—the size of Westminster or thereabouts—and how to move quickly when almost 50% of them are children is why we have called for compliance. IHL has been mentioned and that is part and parcel of this.
On the noble Baroness’s latter point, the United Kingdom is a long-standing supporter of international courts. They act independently, and their role in the application of the rule of law is important.

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that the quickest way to get aid in is to get the hostages out, the quickest way to get the hostages out is to have a sustainable ceasefire, and the quickest way to have a sustainable ceasefire is for Hamas to agree to the generous terms which Egypt has proposed and which Israel has already agreed to?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My noble friend has articulated the Government’s approach extremely well. That is exactly what I assure all noble Lords that the Foreign Secretary and I are working on.

Baroness Deech: My Lords, on the topic of international law, will the Minister remind Egypt of its obligations under the refugee convention to accept such refugees as make their way across the border, rather than beating them back? Will he also set aside the misguided, misinformed statement by—shamefully—some former members of the Supreme Court that it was plausible that Israel was committing genocide? That allegation must be put to rest.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, on the second point, the Government’s position is well known: genocide determination is a matter for the courts. We remind all sides, including partners, friends and allies in the region, of the importance of adhering to international humanitarian law obligations.

Lord Leigh of Hurley: My noble friend the Foreign Secretary set out five objectives—which I fully agree with—one of which was the elimination of Hamas from Gaza. I went to Kerem Shalom twice, once before 7 October and once after. Many of the people we met before 7 October who were delivering aid to Gaza have been killed by Hamas. The people who were left told us that one of their biggest problems was distributing aid because it was being taken by Hamas before it could be distributed. Do His Majesty’s Government still have the objective of the elimination of Hamas from Gaza?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, the Government’s position has always been that we need all sides who come to the negotiating table to recognise the other side’s right to exist. Therefore, we have been very clear as part of my noble friend the Foreign Secretary’s conditions, and as my noble friend Lord Leigh has laid out, that Hamas can no longer be in control in Gaza.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, have the UK Government seen any evidence that the Israeli authorities have put in place serious provisions to ensure that the Palestinian refugees in Gaza are being protected? If they do not see any such serious evidence—the Minister mentioned that he looked for it—what action will they take?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I have already answered the first question; we have seen no credible plan as to where people would go. I assure the noble Baroness that we are pressing the Israeli authorities to ensure that their obligations in this regard are fulfilled if the full-scale Rafah operation goes ahead.

Education (Values of British Citizenship) Bill [HL]
 - First Reading

A Bill to make provision about statements related to values of British citizenship in education in England and Wales.
The Bill was introduced by Lord Harries of Pentregarth, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Conduct Committee
 - Membership Motions

The Senior Deputy Speaker: Moved by The Senior Deputy Speaker
That Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Kidron be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Baroness Mallalieu and Lord Blair of Boughton.
That Lord Goodman of Wycombe be appointed a member of the Select Committee.
That Lord Etherton be appointed a member of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Geidt.
That Baroness Hughes of Stretford be appointed a member of the Select Committee.
Motions agreed.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
 - Committee (3rd Day)

Clause 3: Exceptions

Amendment 18

Lord Verdirame: Moved by Lord Verdirame
18: Clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—“(3A) Regulations under subsection (2)(b) may include descriptions of considerations (including disregard thereof) to give effect to the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment seeks to provide for a clearer way of implementing the international law exception in paragraph 6 of Part 2 of the Schedule.

Lord Verdirame: My Lords, I rise to move the first amendment in this group, Amendment 18 in my name, with the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. It must be read together with Amendment 29, which is also in this group. I shall speak to both of them together. These two amendments deal with the problem arising from the international law exception at paragraph 6 of the schedule.
A number of noble Lords highlighted this problem at Second Reading. In my speech, I referred to the opinion on the Bill by the Richard Hermer KC. I disagree with certain aspects of his opinion, but I agree with his analysis of the effect of paragraph 6 of the schedule. As he put it, a breach by the UK of an unincorporated treaty does not normally give rise to a claim under domestic law, but paragraph 6 of the schedule provides a domestic law foothold for such claims on a virtually unlimited basis. Unless the paragraph is amended or removed, the consequence will be that, contrary to the purposes of the Bill, local authorities, for example, will make their own determinations about UK compliance with international law obligations. If there is a dispute about the correctness of the position they have taken, that dispute will be decided by our courts.
We do not normally implement international law obligations on such an unspecified and broad basis. What we generally do is give effect to specific international law obligations in a manner that is clear, and thus consistent with the rule of law requirement of legal certainty and clarity. There are countless examples of this approach, from the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 to the Human Rights Act. In essence, what happens is that the implementing legislation identifies specific provisions in a treaty that are to be incorporated in domestic law, and sometimes those provisions will be listed in a schedule to the Act. The legislation will then create special rules or mechanisms that Parliament considers are required to give effect to those international law obligations. Examples include the declarations of incompatibility under the HRA and Foreign Office certificates under Section 4 of the Diplomatic Privileges Act.
Paragraph 6 of the schedule to the Bill does not  do any of that. It purports to import the entirety of international law—potentially all treaties, whether incorporated or not, and every rule of customary international law, and invites decision-makers to consider for themselves whether their decisions will be compliant with any such international law. It is an inherently uncertain and unclear provision. Moreover, the international law obligations that might be relevant in this field are contested and unsettled.
This is particularly the case for international legal rules on the duties of third parties vis-à-vis a serious breach of peremptory rules of international law—most notably, Article 41 of the International Law Commission’s articles on state responsibility provides for three very general obligations for states faced with a serious breach of international law by another state. Those obligations are non-recognition, non-assistance and co-operation; but whether this rule entirely reflects customary international law and what it specifically requires of a state is not settled.
Public bodies would also have to determine for themselves whether they can avail themselves of the international law exception. That too requires a complex international law analysis. Whether an entity is a public body under domestic law is, of course, a question of domestic law, but whether the conduct of that body is attributable to the state on the international plane is a question of international law. Universities might be an example of public bodies under domestic law—we have been discussing that in previous debates on this Bill—but it is not the case that the conduct of a university would ordinarily be attributable to the state as a matter of international law.
The amendment that we propose would maintain the international law exception but add clarity to it by ensuring that regulations are adopted to include descriptions of considerations, including disregard thereof, to give effect to the UK’s obligations under international law. There may be a better formulation than the one we propose, but in essence the idea is to replicate the manner in which we have given effect to international law obligations that have not yet come into existence: for example, those that may arise in the future under decisions of the Security Council.
An example of this power is in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. It creates the power to make regulations for purposes of compliance with  UN obligations and, more generally, for the purpose of compliance with any other international obligation. What happens in practice is that the Foreign Office lawyers, together with the Attorney-General, will consider the specific international law obligations that have arisen and then contribute to the drafting of clear, specific and precise regulations to give effect to those obligations. To be clear, the power that we are proposing will not, of course, replace the power in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act. It would be in addition to that.
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, take the view that that power in paragraph 6 may not be needed and could simply fall away. Our proposal is a compromise that reflects the reality that this is a sensitive area and we thought that embedding in the Act a power to make regulations for purposes of complying with international law may, in this context, be useful. I beg to move.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I have Amendment 28 in this group and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for adding his name. I should first say that I am in complete agreement with the thoughts that lie behind Amendments 18 and 29, to which the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has spoken so eloquently.
My Amendment 28 is simply a more direct way of dealing with the same problem. It deletes paragraph 6 of the schedule in its entirety, so that public authorities cannot use international law considerations as a means of avoiding the effect of Section 1 of the Bill. Public authorities are not experts in international law but might well seek to use ill-founded concerns about the UK’s adherence to international law as a smokescreen behind which they believe that they can hide their boycott activities. Put simply, it creates a huge loophole in the Bill.
I tried to compare the Bill with last year’s Procurement Act to see whether the exclusions in the schedule to this Bill are the same as the mandatory and discretionary grounds for exclusion in the Procurement Act. This was not easy, because it is clear that two completely different sets of draftsmen have been involved in the two Bills. However, the one thing that I am pretty sure of is that the Procurement Act did not have an international law exclusion ground, so the inclusion of paragraph 6 in the schedule to this Bill is somewhat puzzling.
I shall comment briefly on Amendment 31 in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, because that would extend the range of things that public authorities could look at to breaches of international law outside the UK. Not only is this way beyond the Procurement Act exclusions as well, but it adds yet another loophole, making the loophole as big as it could possibly be in order to allow public authorities to justify boycotts. For that reason, I cannot support it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s rationale for the inclusion of paragraph 6 in the schedule.

Lord Hendy: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 31 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower. I have no observations on the amendments that have just been spoken to.
Paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 disapplies the bar in Clause 1 of the Bill on a public entity, for want of a more precise definition, from taking into account political or moral disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct in making procurement or investment decisions in one particular situation. A procurement decision is defined in Clause 2(2) as
“a decision about a contract for the supply of goods, services or works to the decision-maker”.
Paragraph 6 applies where the decision-maker reasonably considers that its political or moral disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct is relevant to whether the procurement or investment decision would place the UK in breach of its international law obligations. I have no problem with that at all.
Our amendment, however, would insert a new paragraph 6A with the intention of enlarging paragraph 6’s disapplication of the Clause 1 prohibition. It would allow the decision-maker also to take into consideration whether the procurement decision—or the manufacture, provision or supply of the goods, services or works which is the subject of the procurement or investment—would or might involve a breach of international law by another country. There appears to be no logical reason why it should be permissible to take into account procurement that is likely to result in potential breaches of international law by the UK but impermissible to consider procurement likely to involve equivalent breaches by other countries in the supply chain.
My particular concern here is focused on breaches of international labour law. On the previous day in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, gave a telling example of a hypothetical Welsh Government procurement decision
“to block a supplier of staff uniforms because the clothing is made under abusive conditions in an abusive regime 
That example is topical, since War on Want has recently reported that 44,000 garment workers in Bangladesh are facing arrest after the Government there issued unnamed arrest warrants in response to November’s protests calling for an increase in the minimum wage from £110 to £172 per month. This is the country in which, on 24 April 11 years ago, 1,100 workers died in a fire in a garment factory in which safety standards were ignored. Public entities in the UK might well wish to question whether to procure from such a country.
Mention of Wales makes me think of another example where local people might also have strong views about public procurement of steel made in countries which do not respect trade union rights if, as seems likely, steelmaking capacity at Port Talbot is reduced and that capacity is substituted by steel made elsewhere in the world.
Before I say more, I should make the obvious point —which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have already made—that the international law referred to in paragraph 6, and in our proposed new paragraph 6A, is not confined to matters of labour law but covers every area of international law. Therefore, those of your Lordships more focused on international law obligations in relation to, for example, the environment,  civil rights or maritime law will share my concern that UK public entities in their overseas procurement decisions should be allowed to take account of breaches of international law by countries in their potential supply chains.
It is true that paragraph 8 of the Schedule already allows decision-makers to take account of a limited range of matters in relation to labour standards, but it is very limited. In essence, paragraph 8 applies only to conduct that would amount to a criminal offence in relation to slavery or human trafficking orders, failure to pay the national minimum wage, and labour market orders under the Immigration Act. For some reason, the Bill does not currently permit those making procurement decisions to have regard to the fundamental labour standards binding on all countries by virtue of their membership of the International Labour Organization. These are usefully set out in Articles 399(2) and (6) of the trade and co-operation agreement—the Brexit deal—signed by our then Prime Minister in 2020.
These provisions commit the United Kingdom to respect, promote and effectively implement the ILO Constitution, which includes the Declaration of Philadelphia; the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its follow-up, adopted at Geneva on 18 June 1998; the ILO decent work agenda, set out in the 2008 ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization; and the fundamental ILO conventions.
Those conventions, binding on every member country on earth, whether or not the country in question has ratified each convention, protect the following: freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; the abolition of all forms of forced or compulsory labour; the effective abolition of child labour; the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation; decent working conditions for all with regard to, inter alia, wages, earnings, working hours, maternity leave, and other conditions of work; health and safety at work, including the prevention of occupational injury or illness, and compensation in cases of such injury or illness; and non-discrimination in respect of working conditions, including for migrant workers.
It is no answer for the Government to say, as was suggested on the previous occasion, that these are matters of foreign policy reserved to Westminster. They are not. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, explained the distinction. In any event, by its ratification of every one of these international laws, the United Kingdom has declared its foreign policy in respect of these matters. Furthermore, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, put it, in relation to her example:
“How can it not be right that the people of Wales can decide for themselves that they do not want to see people wearing uniforms from that kind of source? ”.—[Official Report, 17/4/24; col. 1077.]
It is much more likely that breaches of international labour law will occur in supply-chain countries, rather than the destination country, the United Kingdom, for the obvious reason that supply chains are usually constructed to exploit cheap labour, poor conditions, inadequate standards, lack of enforcement, and powerless  trade unions. As I mentioned at Second Reading, the International Trade Union Confederation’s Global Rights Index has ascertained that breaches of workers’ rights reached record highs last year. It lists Bangladesh, Belarus, Ecuador, Egypt, Eswatini, Guatemala, Myanmar, Tunisia, the Philippines and Turkey as the 10 worst countries for workers’ rights. No less than 73% of the countries surveyed impeded the registration of unions, or banned them outright, including Belarus, Central African Republic and Guatemala. Worse still, 80% of the countries surveyed violated the right to strike.
After the military coup in Myanmar, 16 trade unions were declared illegal and trade union activists have been arrested, dismissed, blacklisted and murdered. Maung Maung, the president of the Confederation of Trade Unions, Myanmar, spoke at a meeting in your Lordships’ House on the same day as our previous session in Committee. He escaped prosecution only by reason of the fact that he is in exile.
Why should public entities not take such matters into consideration? The Minister was kind enough to write to me on 8 March, after Second Reading, about a question I had raised in debate. She said that public entities would be allowed to take such matters into account, so long as the rejection of the hypothetical tender was not on country-specific grounds. I am somewhat dubious about that, since the obvious bar in paragraph 6 is that breaches of international law are to be taken into consideration only if the procurement might put the UK in breach of its obligations.
If foreign breaches may be taken into account, the problem is that the decision-maker is likely to be deciding on a country-specific basis, weighing all the factors and assessing the nature of the breaches of the particular country from which the tender comes. To do that, the decision-maker will probably, and rightly, make reference to the very detailed review of that country’s adherence to ILO standards carried out by the ILO’s Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, conducted each year.
Insistence on international labour standards in supply chains is an important way of improving the conditions of labour in the third world and, at the same time, preventing good employers in the UK being undercut by bad, and unlawful, conditions abroad. The right to insist on such matters of international law is surely an important element of local democracy. It does not detract from Westminster’s ability to enforce international law on a wider basis. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s view on my amendment.

Lord Etherton: I support Amendments 18 and 29, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, to which I have added my name. In view of what has been said in detail by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I can be very short.
Put very simply, the international law exception in the Schedule, as currently worded, leaves entirely to the relevant public body the right to reach its own conclusion as to whether a failure to boycott or a positive decision to make a procurement in relation to the foreign state would place the UK in breach of its obligations under international law. This is contrary to the Government’s own policy in paragraph 6 of the  Explanatory Notes that the obligations under international law relevant to a BDS decision must be determined by the Government and not by individual relevant bodies. As we all know, many aspects of international law derived from numerous sources can be highly contentious. One has only to think of disagreements expressed in this House over the past few years on the proper meaning and effect of the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights to see that that is so.
Paragraph 6 of the Explanatory Notes states that decisions of public policy about procurement and investment based on political or moral disapproval of a foreign state are permitted only if the decision is,
“positively consistent with the UK’s foreign policy”—
I emphasise—
“as determined by the Government”.
The Minister, in response to me on Second Reading, was not entirely consistent in relation to this matter. She said:
“This exception is necessary to ensure that public authorities are not forced to make a decision which could put the UK in breach of its obligations under international law. Public authorities cannot have their own subjective views on what constitutes a breach of international law”—
which is fair enough. She continued:
“They must reasonably consider the decision relevant to the UK’s obligations under international law”.—[Official Report, 20/2/24; col. 595.]
Therefore, there is an insertion there of “reasonable consideration” but no reference at all to the Government’s policy stated in the Explanatory Notes that foreign policy is to be determined by the Government and not by individual public entities.
In short, we simply cannot have disputes before our domestic courts about the proper meaning and effect of international law sources relevant to decisions under the Bill going through the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court at great cost to the public as well as, of course, to the ratepayers and the council tax payers of the relevant body.

Baroness Altmann: My Lords, I will briefly support the two amendments, one from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the other from my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I urge my noble friend the Minister to consider carefully the purpose of these amendments.
I completely support the Bill and I am grateful to the Government for bringing it forward, although I recognise that not all noble Lords will be of the same mind as myself. However, I stress that using a test such as that proposed in paragraph 6 of the Schedule, as to whether the decision would place the UK in breach of its obligations under international law, is problematic.
International law is not well defined, especially in developing areas where international lawyers are increasingly recognising a duty of states to avoid assisting violations of international law by others. It could be easy for activists to assert disputed facts alleged to constitute violations of international law, which might bring this into play. Activists could, for example, promote  BDS against Israel by claiming that it is required to avoid placing the UK in breach of its obligations under international law.
The problems are highlighted by a recent letter signed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, and Lord Sumption, which claimed that the UK Government have an obligation to cease arms supplies to Israel on the grounds that these might assist Israel to carry out genocide. This was based on a misunderstanding of the International Court of Justice’s initial conclusions on an appeal by South Africa. Paragraph 6 of the Schedule might, I fear, enable activists to argue, in every council and public authority up and down the country, on a similar basis that they should not procure from or invest in a company that does business with Israel, for example, because this might assist some alleged genocide or other alleged crimes, which may be based entirely on a misunderstanding.
I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling these amendments and hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider that paragraph 6 of the Schedule may unintentionally be liable to undermine the purposes of this Bill.

Lord Hain: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Hendy’s amendment. Not only has he made a very powerful case as a renowned labour rights lawyer, but he has mentioned the question of the Welsh Government’s position, which is something I want to ask noble Lords, and in particular the Minister, to consider. Supposing the Welsh Government faced a decision by the UK Government not to support the steel industry with the support that it needs, we could see the closure of the Port Talbot steelworks, which directly employs just under 3,000 people on wages that are high for the area; indirectly, with the multiplier effect, at least 9,000 workers would lose their jobs, and a whole series of supplier industries would be affected. That would be the equivalent of closing mines in former pit villages, which I experienced as a Member of Parliament in the Neath valley, specifically representing those within the old constituency of Neath for nearly a quarter of a century. Closing the Port Talbot steelworks will be the equivalent of ripping the heart out of that whole area, and, as I have said, the multiplier effect will be devastating. It will be equivalent to closing the mines, particularly in the 1980s and flowing on into the 1990s.
I make that point because, if a steel supplier replacing the collapsed British steel industry was found to have labour standards that were in breach of international law, as my noble friend Lord Hendy has so authoritatively explained, why would—and should—the Welsh Government not have the right to say, “No, we won’t source that steel for infrastructure development”, which the Welsh Government largely have responsibility for in Wales under the devolved powers? Why should they not say, “We won’t do that because of the terrible labour standards, which are out of compliance with international labour law”? Why are they being denied that opportunity? Under this Bill, they will be denied that opportunity, unless the Government are willing to accept my noble friend Lord Hendy’s amendment.
This is a terrible Bill. I am normally on the same side of the argument as my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, but this is a terrible Bill, and I will  further explain why in the discussion on the next group of amendments. I ask the Minister to consider where the Bill is taking public bodies such as the Welsh Government—and Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, which might be in the same position. If this Government allow the Port Talbot steelworks to close, with devastating consequences for the area, particularly employees in Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, it might say, “In any future procurement decisions, we will not source steel from this or that country, replacing the Port Talbot steelworks, because of their labour law standards and their failure to comply with international workers’ rights and other matters”.
I cannot understand why the Government are driving the Bill forward without considering detailed amendments like that of my noble friend Lord Hendy. I know that the Minister has not replied yet; perhaps she will surprise us and say, “Yes, I agree with the noble Lord’s amendment”, or, at least, “I will take it away and look at how we might refine it in a fashion that could be acceptable to the Government and which he might be willing to accept”.
I hope the Minister surprises me by doing that but, if she does not, I ask her, the Government and the Conservative Benches to consider where this country is going on such matters. We are not respecting human rights. That is a matter for the next group of amendments, but we are not respecting our international obligations to uphold workers’ rights—conventions, by the way, that we have signed up to as a UK Government. That does not seem a good place to leave this country, and I hope that the Minister, having listened to the speech by my noble friend Lord Hendy, will agree to look at how she might be able to support his amendment, perhaps in a slightly modified form.

Lord Deben: My Lords, I remind the House of my declaration of interests. It is exactly from that position that I wish to ask a fundamental question of my noble friend. We spend an awful lot of time trying to get companies not to be complicit with the Government of Myanmar, for example, because of their actions. We are proud that there is a whole series of decent private and public companies that make decisions on those grounds. Are we sure that we should be in a position in which we will encourage public and private companies to make decisions on those grounds but specifically exclude the right of elected bodies—and some non-elected bodies, because they have been designated as public bodies—to make those decisions? I find that a very difficult position to support.
Part of the problem is that we are now in a complex and extremely uncertain area, which is why all the amendments before us are of considerable importance. They say that we are putting public bodies—we are not quite sure what they are—in a position where they do not know quite how they should behave, and we are opening them up to the opportunity of people taking them to court because the decision they have made has not been in conformity with what the plaintiffs suggest should have been their decision in relation to international law. At the same time, we are saying to them that they should not take into account the same things most of us would try to get private companies—and public companies, in that sense—to take into account.
We are getting into a real mess here, and I do not see that this is a carefully written Bill. Indeed, my last point is simply that this is a terribly badly written Bill. I do not know who thought it through. We have now had a series of people taking rather different views—as a matter of fact, I am unhappy about the particular way in which Israel is treated in the Bill. We are all taking different views, but we are all saying that the Bill is so badly written that people will not know how to deal with it.
This is a central concern for this House; we need legislation through which we can explain to people what is happening. If I may say to the noble Lords who put the amendments forward, it took a bit of listening to understand what their problem was, to put it bluntly. How on earth are we going to have public bodies coming to decisions when they have to read that to start with to understand what mess they might be in? I hope my noble friend will help me to understand how this Bill will be simple enough for it, first, to be enforced and, secondly, to be proper. At the moment, I feel it is improper, because it is so badly drafted.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, we should get this into perspective. I say to my noble friend Lord Deben and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, that this Bill is handling one particular aspect: fundamentally, boycotts and divestment decisions. There is a whole range of law in the Procurement Act, which we passed last year, which sets out the UK’s version of the procurement rules we used to take from the EU—they have been modernised for our own purposes, but they are still hugely complicated.
For a very long time, the Government’s own procurement advice to public bodies was that:
“Public procurement should never be used as a tool to boycott tenders from suppliers based in other countries, except where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the UK Government”.
In many ways, this Bill provides a more liberal approach to that blanket proposition, which was in a government procurement policy note and which has been governing procurement for a long time. We need to see this Bill in context and in the light of the rather narrow area it is trying to deal with.

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hain, I think this is a rather good Bill, although I agree respectfully with him that these amendments, particularly those on international law, merit careful consideration by the Minister and the Government. I say that essentially for three reasons, and I can be brief.
First, the general approach in this country is that public bodies do not have their own interpretation of international law. It is the Government who assess international law obligations, because they are binding on the United Kingdom as a state.
That leads me to the second point, which might in part answer that made by my noble friend Lord Deben. The effect of the Bill as drafted is to introduce, by the back door, potentially vast swathes of international law into our domestic legislation. As I never tire of saying in this House, we have a dualist system:  international law is not part of domestic law unless and until it is incorporated. So the answer to my noble friend’s point may well be this: if somebody were to say in a domestic court that a public authority was in breach of “the law” because it had not complied with some international law obligation that was not part of our domestic law, the public body’s obvious retort would be to say that it is not subject to that obligation.
The third point is a practical rather than legal one. My concern is that, in the real world, if the Bill is left as drafted it will in practice drive a coach and horses through what it really seeks to achieve, because the courts will be clogged up with arguments, even if they are entirely unmeritorious, as to the scope of international law. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, about Richard Hermer KC’s opinion: it is something of a curate’s egg, and I will perhaps come back to that in a later group. But I agree that, on this point, he is absolutely right to sound a note of warning and to highlight that the Bill as drafted risks undermining the Government’s ambitions for it.
I gently invite my noble friend the Minister to reconsider the Government’s approach to this international law question, which we can perhaps come back to at a future opportunity.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: My Lords, I apologise to the Committee because I did not participate in previous days in Committee or at Second Reading, but as these groups touch on the areas that I speak on from these Benches—international trade and international relations—I want to ask the Minister for clarity on a couple of areas.
The first is leading on from the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, about bodies within the UK that are afforded decision-making abilities under our treaties. Numerous treaties afford subnational authorities and decision-makers the ability to make policy decisions or interpret international law, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, said. That may apply to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or local authorities. This is quite common in trade agreements. It is a requirement of trade agreements that those subnational bodies, in effect, make a decision about whether their actions within that treaty would bring about a potential breach of the treaty for the United Kingdom itself, so the ability of a public body to make a decision exists. I am seeking clarity from the Minister about the intent behind this legislation for those powers that exist in these areas. Is it to remove them or to provide, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, a more liberal provision that will continue the ability of those subnational bodies to make their determinations?
The noble Baroness referenced the Procurement Act, which she went through. We sat through many days on that, as did the Minister. As the Committee will know, UK procurement legislation allows decision-makers to reach their own judgments about whether entering into procurement arrangements with other bodies could potentially be a breach of obligations, such as whether that body is of good character or whether there has been corruption. That exists. On one reading, the Bill will seek to remove that, but paragraph 6 of the Schedule would maintain it. I am seeking from the  Minister the intent behind this legislation. Unless the position is crystal clear, accounting officers in public bodies who are statutorily responsible for making those decisions will have no clarity when it comes to some of them.
The second area is the position of UK Ministers on the potential of other nations breaching international law. If we have an involvement in that other country, there is the risk that we would be covered by elements of international law. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, will address human rights in a later group. This is important when it comes to countries such as Myanmar or the Occupied Palestinian Territories because there have been times when Ministers at the Dispatch Box, responding to my questions, have said that they have issued warnings to sovereign countries that their actions run the risk of breaching international humanitarian law or customary law. What is the public body meant to do with that statement? A public body could act proportionately and reasonably—the equivalent would be the risk register—and state that it heard the Foreign Secretary issue a warning in Parliament that that country was potentially in breach of international humanitarian law. Under the Bill, is it asked to do nothing about it or to act reasonably and state that there is a risk with entering into commercial or investment relations with the very body to which the Foreign Secretary, on behalf of the Government, issued a warning? What is the Minister’s statement about that? On one reading of the legislation, I think the public body would be under a duty to ignore the Foreign Secretary’s warning. Under the Schedule, the public body would potentially be able to take that into consideration in acting reasonably and stating that it would not invest or have a relationship.
When it comes to priority countries that the FCDO has stated are potentially at risk of breaching international law, what is the decision-maker reasonably asked to do? I would be grateful if the Minister could provide clarity. At the moment it seems that in this area, for those two aspects, one part of the Bill is contradicting the other.

Lord Oates: My Lords, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that these amendments simply highlight the mess that the Government have got themselves into with the Bill as a whole. The Bill imposes some extraordinary obligations on public bodies, which I presume is the reason for paragraph 6 of the Schedule—it is necessary only because of those extraordinary measures.
Most of the amendments in this group do not deal with the fundamental issue that the Bill is incoherent. Amendment 18, in trying to deal with this issue, potentially gives huge powers to Ministers to profoundly shape or change the nature of the Bill by their powers to set out what should be regarded and disregarded in terms of international law obligations. Amendment 28 pretends that the overall issue with the Bill—which is the reason that paragraph 6 of the Schedule exists in the first place—does not exist. Fundamentally, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, this is a very bad Bill. These amendments just underline why.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that I wish the Bill was specific and addressed the manifesto commitment  of the Conservative Party. The Labour Party has made it absolutely clear that we are opposed to boycotts, disinvestment and singling out Israel. The problem with the Bill is that it is wide. It covers all kinds of issues that will place public bodies in a very difficult position. In the debate on this group of amendments, we have senior legal people all saying basically the same thing: this will end up in court. When that fear of ending up in court occurs—when people read a law and say, “This is so complicated that we don’t know what it means; it will end up with us in court”—what happens then? It is the chilling effect. There will be decisions made not in the interest of the public body but on the basis of it not being sure that it is capable of making this decision. That is the important thing.
I support my noble friend’s amendment on extending the exceptions. The Schedule lays out other obligations on public bodies, not least very positive legislation that this Government have implemented on modern slavery, on other international law issues, on labour-related misconduct and so on. They are naturally there because these public bodies have already been told that these obligations are on them. There will be a lot of confusion. I agree with my noble friend’s point about taking into account potential breaches of international law by the UK but not those by other countries in the supply chain. Most of our experience of labour issues is that those supply chains can be incredibly convoluted. You do not know the origin of certain products. We have had debates in this Chamber about the use of cotton grown in Xinjiang by slave labour and being sold in British shops. Companies have decided to find out where that goes.
My noble friend also raised the Rana Plaza disaster of 2013. I remember it well, and I am sure that the Minister does, too, because many of our retail companies were selling products made in factories that were incredibly unsafe and used child labour. That disaster will stay in my mind. The government response at the time was, “There are potential breaches of international law. We will give the ILO extra money to go and investigate Bangladesh so that it commits to its proper responsibilities”. We did that.
The Government in this legislation are saying, “There are all sorts of factors that we can’t take into account—and even if we can, there are exceptions, the Secretary of State has to be involved, and we know it’s going to end up in court.” That is the problem with this legislation. It is not straightforward dealing with BDS. I wish it were. We will come on to that in the other group.
I have been trying to work out at what point I should read out the guidance on the Occupied Territories in Palestine that the Government have issued to companies. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, please read it. The noble Baroness is nodding; she has read it. Great. I shall read it into the record, although it may take longer than the 10 minutes I am allowed.
“The UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements: The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights have been occupied by Israel since 1967. Settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties … There are therefore clear risks related to economic  and financial activities in the settlements, and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements as well as other economic activities (including in services like tourism) in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israel’s territory. This may result in disputed titles to the land, water, mineral or other natural resources which might be the subject of purchase or investment … UK citizens and businesses should be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements, as well as possible abuses of the rights of individuals. Those contemplating any economic or financial involvement in settlements should seek appropriate legal advice”.
That is the Government’s advice, recently issued. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, we are saying that there is one policy for the private sector and another for the public sector. That is absolutely crazy. There are so many contradictions in this legislation that it beggars belief. I hope that the Minister will think hard about the complex nature of the Bill, and perhaps give it due consideration. I shall not repeat my comments on the next group, but we have often said, “Let’s sit down together and come to a solution that meets the requirements that were set out in the manifesto”. This legislation does not; that is why it is so wrong.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My Lords, I will address the various amendments tabled in relation to international law. If the Committee is content, I will start by addressing Amendment 31, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. It is a wide-ranging amendment, as some have said, which would allow public authorities to choose not to procure a good, service or works if their manufacture, provision or supply may have involved a breach of international law. Where a judgment has been made that a party has breached international law, it is for the Government and not a public authority to determine the appropriate response. This amendment would give public authorities too much discretion to engage in boycotts and divestment campaigns and would undermine the legislation.
The noble Lord provided a couple of examples for consideration, for which I was grateful, which he is concerned the Bill would prevent. As he is aware, the Bill already contains an exception to the ban for considerations relating to labour market misconduct, including modern slavery and human trafficking. This means that public authorities will be able to continue to have regard to international treaties banning forced labour. This is relevant to the Port Talbot steel example, which the noble Lord, Lord Hain, also spoke about.
Without more detail, I am not able to say for certain whether the Bill would apply to all the noble Lord’s specific examples. If he can provide further details later today, my officials will take them away and provide a response before the next Committee debate. Additionally, we are due to discuss labour standards in more detail when we come to Amendment 32.
The Procurement Act, which we have drawn on, strengthens the way in which these terms are defined. Suppliers may be excluded where there is sufficient  evidence that they are responsible for abuses anywhere in the world, whether or not they have been convicted of an offence. We believe that this approach is the right one.
Additionally, I note the concerns of my noble friend Lord Deben, particularly regarding Myanmar. As I have stressed before, it is not appropriate for public authorities to have their own foreign policies. I agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes that they should not pursue blanket boycotts. These are unfair on suppliers operating ethically in those countries.
I want also to highlight to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, that doing business with a country that has breached international law is not always by itself enough to put the UK in breach of international law. Additionally, the Bill contains a power to exclude certain countries and territories from the ban via secondary legislation. The Government will keep their response under review and have made it clear that they regard that provision as important.

Lord Deben: My noble friend is saying that, if a regime controls by force and in the most terrible way the whole economics of a nation, I can advise a private company not to deal with it and remove itself from it, but a public body could not say, “I will not trade with or buy from Myanmar”, unless the Government decide that they will not deal with Myanmar in that sense. I find that morally extremely difficult to take. We are asking private people to do things—I am sure the Government would support that—but we are going to exclude those who are democratically elected or who are looking after, for example, a university. I find that very difficult to take.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: We are of course dealing with investment and procurement and the public bodies themselves.
Perhaps I should respond to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who mentioned the Occupied Territories, which we will be coming back to on later amendments. Although the Government recognise the risks associated with—

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I am perplexed by her view that foreign policy is simply a matter for central Governments. Foreign policy affects the population of the UK; it affects thousands of institutions in one way or another. We live, after all, in a global world. We do not live in a completely isolated country with no contact with the rest of the world. Foreign policy is not just something that can be determined and administered entirely by central government without the engagement, involvement and acceptance of those policies by a very large number of public and private institutions and individual members of this country.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: I note what the noble Baroness says, but the Bill does not change UK foreign policy. That is for FCDO and the UK Government to decide. This applies only to public authorities and to investment and procurement, which I have continued to emphasise, because I think some of the discussion is needlessly wide-ranging—and, if I may, I will now make progress.
The Government, as I was saying, in relation to the Palestinian Occupied Territories, recognise the risk associated with economic and financial activities in the Israeli settlements, but we do not support boycotts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. They are inherently divisive and may lead to inadvertent negative effects on Palestinians, as well as undermining the aim of the Bill, which is to ensure that we speak with one voice internationally. None of this changes existing government guidance.

Lord Collins of Highbury: This is a fundamental point. I have made clear the Labour Party’s position on boycotts. We are talking about investment in factories in illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories. What is the noble Baroness saying to a public body that realises that an investment it had has suddenly transferred from Jordan to a factory in the Occupied Territories? Is she saying that that public body cannot say that the investment is in breach? It causes reputational risk and could fundamentally affect the value of the investment, because it is illegal. What is the noble Baroness saying: that we are going to put it in this Bill, come what may, because that is the foreign policy? It makes no sense to me at all. The Government are talking with two voices. The FCDO is saying one thing and this Minister is saying something completely different.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: I do not think there is a difference between us and the FCDO. If I may, I will move on to the other amendments, because I am trying, as I always do, to answer the questions noble Lords have asked. There are a number of different amendments in this group, and I think we should look at them in the round. I will turn to Amendments 18, 28 and 29.
I will start with Amendment 28, which is a probing amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, which would remove paragraph 6 of the schedule. She said that was a direct approach. I thank her, more generally, for her support for this legislation and for providing this opportunity to explain why this provision was included in the Bill. Paragraph 6 of the schedule makes an exception to the ban for considerations that a decision-maker in a public authority reasonably considers to be relevant to compliance with the UK’s obligations under international law.
Amendments 29 and 18, as the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has explained, would remove the existing exception and replace it with a narrower exception that would only allow public authorities to consider international law in a way that is influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct, in line with regulations made by the Secretary of State. I would like to thank him, and my noble friend Lady Noakes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for raising this matter. I acknowledge the noble Lord’s and my noble friend’s valuable expertise in this area— of course, they have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is not in his place, my noble friends Lady Altmann and Lord Wolfson.
There are very limited examples of when this clause might be relevant to public authorities, such as when abiding by sanctions under international law. It is  therefore intended as a safeguard. I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern that public authorities could make their own subjective interpretations of foreign policy that are not aligned with the foreign policy of the UK Government. This exception can only be exercised by public authorities in a way that is “reasonable”. It would be up to the enforcement authority, or the courts, to determine whether the exception was exercised reasonably.
However, I appreciate noble Lords’ various concerns on this matter, including the impact on the courts, and the Government will consider these. We will no doubt return to the international law issue on Report. I thank noble Lords for their insightful contributions—

Lord Purvis of Tweed: Can I press the Minister on that? My understanding is that, under the Bill, in the absence of a Minister or the Government coming to a determination that international law has been breached, a decision-maker in a public authority can make the decision that there is the potential of a breach. Therefore, a decision-making body at the moment, for example—because Ministers are warning the Israeli Government that their actions in the West Bank and Occupied Territories are potentially in breach of international law—would be permitted under Schedule 6 to make a decision not to invest.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: I am not sure that I entirely understand the noble Lord’s question, but I will reflect on it. We will come relatively shortly to a group that will look at these issues more broadly. If I am able to do so, I will come back to him at that point.
As I have already said, various concerns have been raised, which we will consider. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that we value this House’s expertise, as I said at Question Time only last week. The Government will continue to think carefully about the important points that have been made. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Verdirame: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The key driver behind our amendments was a concern about clarity, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, pointed out. International law is not just a law but an entire legal system, so to say that you cannot breach international law is like saying that you cannot breach Chinese law. The legislative instruction has to be more specific than that. That is the essence of our concern.
I do not think the power we are proposing in my amendments, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, would be excessive, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Oates. We have other examples of that in the legislation. As for the Minister’s comment on sanctions, we already have powers in legislation to deal with sanctions, so there would not need to be an international law exception on such a broad and unlimited basis to cover that situation; we already deal with that in our existing legislation.
I thank those who supported our amendments and analysis, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson  of Tredegar. I look forward to the proposals that the Minister said she would consider bringing forward on Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment 18 withdrawn.

Amendment 19

Lord Collins of Highbury: Moved by Lord Collins of Highbury
19: Clause 3, page 2, line 40, at end insert—“(4A) Section 1 does not apply to a decision which has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights.(4B) A “Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights”—(a) is a public authority’s policy criteria relating to disinvestment in cases concerning contravention of human rights, and(b) must be applied consistently by the public authority to all foreign countries.(4C) Within 60 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish, and lay before Parliament, guidance on the form, content and application of a Statement for the purposes of this section.(4D) Public authorities must have regard to the guidance referenced in subsection (4C) when devising a Statement for the purposes of this section.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would exempt public bodies from the prohibition in section 1 where the decision has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights. A Statement may not single out individual nations—the policy would have to be applied consistently, and in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, in moving this amendment and speaking to Amendment 48, I stress that we are very happy to sit down with the noble Baroness and her departmental colleagues to see whether there is a way forward to address the fundamental principle of not outlawing BDS but ensuring that decisions are not simply made to single out one particular nation—and that is of course Israel.
There is a way forward. In our view, it is not wrong for public bodies to take ethical investment decisions—we had a lengthy discussion about this in the earlier group —but those decisions must be consistent. We have heard many legitimate criticisms of foreign Governments and many Ministers have expressed concerns. They may not have clear policy, but they have expressed concerns.
In these amendments, which will hopefully have the support of the Government, we are trying to stop people who seek to target Israel alone, hold it to different standards from other countries, question its right to exist and equate the actions of the Israeli Government to Jewish people, in doing so creating hate and hostility against Jewish people in the United Kingdom. We have seen a lot of evidence of that in recent times and it is completely wrong.
What our amendment seeks to do is to address this problem in a coherent policy way. It would allow public bodies to produce a document setting out their policy on procurement and human rights. The policy  would be cemented in a framework based on principles that apply equally to all countries, rather than singling out an individual nation. Such a statement of ethical policy would ensure consistency in how public bodies decide on these matters and would be subject to the guidance issued by the elected Members and laid before this House. This is the correct way to approach this question. Any inconsistent application would be prohibited. Under Labour’s proposals, if a public body were to act against a particular state—for instance, the world’s only Jewish state—and failed to apply a consistent approach to human rights everywhere, such actions would be unlawful.
So we are trying to address, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, a very specific concern that we all share. We share the same objectives and we are very disappointed that, in the Commons, the Government chose not to support our amendments on this question, but I repeat our offer to the Government—indeed, to the whole House—to work together, to speak with one voice on the most serious issues, and we hope that we can move forward on the basis of this amendment.
Far from singling out Israel, the Bill applies as much to China, to Myanmar, as we heard on the previous group, and to North Korea as it does to Israel. For example, on the issues we have discussed in terms of procurement, it could have significant effects on the ability of communities to support the Uighur minority in China, who are victims of grave human rights abuses—concentration camps and slave labour. The amendment seeks genuine consensus across the Committee to make sure that we do not have bad, inconsistent legislation. It is important that people should be able to raise concerns appropriately and in the best way, that is why an overall policy, and consistency in terms of policy, should drive their actions, not simply singling out a country. The Bill does not allow that.
Even the Foreign Secretary’s office warned No. 10 about the impact of the Bill on our foreign commitments, and I raised that in the previous group, particularly in relation to the Occupied Territories and the impact on our policy of a two-state solution. We want to work constructively with the Government and I hope that the Minister will listen to our concerns. I think this is a way forward, I hope it can garner support across the Committee and I beg to move.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I support Amendment 19, to which I have added my name, and I will speak to Amendment 48 in my name. Amendment 48 is focused on a simple question: does the statement of compatibility by the Minister on the face of the Bill comply with the terms of Clause 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, or would the Minister have been wiser to make a statement under the terms of Clause 19(1)(b) of that Act?
Just to remind the Committee, the Minister states on the face of the Bill that its provisions
“are compatible with the Convention rights”.
It is, of course, possible for Parliament to pass legislation that is not compliant with convention provisions. That is indeed provided for in Section 19(1)(b) of the 1998 Act. But if we adopt that course, we have to fess up to the fact that although Ministers are
“unable to make a statement of compatibility the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill”.
I recognise that some members of the Conservative Party would find it a badge of honour to flourish a statement of non-compatibility with the Human Rights Act, but I would not have placed the Minister in that group, so I am curious to find out what is going on.
First, however, I must own up to my personal involvement with and attachment to Section 19 provisions in the 1998 Act, when I was a senior policy adviser to the then Home Secretary. At that time, there was a robust debate about whether, despite the sovereignty of Parliament, legislation could be stopped if it breached ECHR provisions. Quite naturally, parliamentary sovereignty inevitably triumphed, but there was concern in the Labour Government at the time that they wanted proper consideration to be given to the ECHR when Bills came to Parliament. With my good friend the late and much-missed Lord Gareth Williams, a distinguished lawyer, Home Office Minister and later Leader of this House, we came up with the idea of a ministerial statement of ECHR compliance on the face of the Bill. That led to the drafting of what became Section 19 of the 1998 Act. This provision was intended to make Ministers stop and think carefully about human rights convention compliance before they introduced a Bill to Parliament.
It is quite difficult to see that this has happened with this Bill. Clause 4 as drafted is a straightforward gagging provision. It stops people openly discussing a full range of possible actions they might take to express their disapproval of an Israeli Government’s continued breaching of international law in Gaza and the Occupied Territories. This places the Bill in breach of Article 10 of the convention—the right to freedom of expression—and therefore in breach of Section 6 of the 1998 Act.
That is not just my view—it is the clear view of Liberty, Amnesty International and many others, including many parliamentarians. People cannot see how Clause 4 can be squared with Article 10 of the ECHR. Liberty has also argued that the Bill constitutes an interference with the rights of freedom of conscience under Article 9 of the ECHR, a view that I think is shared by Quakers, given their beliefs.
In these circumstances, I am at a loss to see how the Minister can make the statement on the face of the Bill that it is compliant with Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act. When I consulted the clerk about framing an amendment to delete the statement on the face of the Bill, I was told I could not do that. However, they helpfully suggested that I could insert a provision that after the passage of the Bill, there should be a review of its compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 within a given period. That is exactly what Amendment 48 would do, with particular attention paid to compliance with Article 10 of the ECHR, the right to freedom of expression. If that review found that the Act was not compliant, the Government of the day would then have to decide whether they would go forward and implement the Act, in contravention of the 1998 Act.
I return to the question I posed at the beginning of my remarks. If the Minister still believes that she has placed the correct statement of compliance on the face of the Bill, I respectfully ask her to share with the House the source of the legal advice that convinced her it was the right thing to do.
I turn briefly to Amendment 19, to which I have added my name and strongly support. I will not repeat the persuasive arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Collins. This amendment is an important step towards making the Bill more compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998, but I fear that the Minister’s statement on the Bill’s compliance will not pass muster.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, helpfully explained in his opening remarks the extent to which he agrees with the aims of the Bill but not the means chosen. However, his amendment could open a huge back door to councils and devolved authorities doing what they want in relation to BDS activities, because they would only have to dress up what they want to do as a statement of human rights policy. That statement is not even fully defined as regards what is meant by human rights. This could be a massive loophole. At the end of the day, it would still involve public authorities, including the devolved Administrations, in ignoring foreign policy as set by the UK Government. We must not allow ourselves to get away from the fact that that is crucial. We cannot have public authorities setting foreign policy.

Lord Hain: My Lords, I follow on from the noble Baroness’s diktat position whereby central Government decide the policy and nobody else can have a view. That would undermine the position. It was the thrust of the noble Baroness’s earlier speech that the Minister indicated that it is for the UK Government to set foreign policy on boycotts and sanctions, and nobody else can do anything about it. As I pointed out at Second Reading, that would have made illegal the decision by many local authorities, universities and student unions to boycott products from apartheid South Africa, and I quoted a KC’s legal opinion confirming that.
How can the noble Baroness possibly justify her position, given the history of the downfall of apartheid, which is contrary to what she tried to suggest? The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in a very unfortunate speech, tried to suggest that sanctions played no role. No serious student of the history of South Africa agrees with that position. Sanctions certainly played a part. But the boycott decision taken by many local councils, universities and student unions, in particular, among the public bodies covered by the Bill to refuse to source products from South Africa—and indeed, to impose sanctions and boycotts and to support Nelson Mandela’s being freed from 27 years of imprisonment—would have been illegal under the Bill. Why? Because the Government of the day in the 1980s, under Margaret Thatcher, did not support that boycott and sanctions policy. So all those local authorities and churches, including many archbishops, bishops and vicars, supporting those boycott campaigns would have all been acting illegally under the Bill if speaking for public bodies.
I want to speak especially to Amendment 19 and to notify your Lordships’ House that I do not wish to move my Amendment 49, in the sixth group, not least to spare Members hearing a further similar speech from me.
I was privileged to serve in the Labour Government of Tony Blair, and I spent two years in the Foreign Office under Foreign Secretary Robin Cook. He undertook to publish an annual report on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s work to promote human rights overseas as part of the then Government’s commitment to put human rights right at the heart of our foreign policy. Indeed, I was the Minister directly responsible for promoting that human rights policy, among other responsibilities. The publication of an annual human rights and democracy report has rightly continued under this Government. It includes a list of human rights priority countries that have been identified as having particular human rights or democracy challenges.
This is the Government’s own list. There are 32 countries, and I referred to them all in my Amendment 49, which I now intend not to move. I want to read that list out as most of these countries are not included in the Bill: Afghanistan; Bangladesh; Belarus, which is included in the Bill; Central African Republic; China; Colombia; Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; Democratic Republic of Congo; Egypt; Eritrea; Ethiopia; Haiti; Iran, which has been repressing its women citizens, particularly younger women, terribly; Iraq; Libya; Mali; Myanmar/Burma; Nicaragua; and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Occupied Palestinian Territories are in the Government’s own list of 32; they are excluded under the terms of this Bill. The list also includes Pakistan, Russia—Russia is included, and I will come back to that, along with Belarus—Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen and Zimbabwe.
There are significant human rights concerns about all 32 countries. Noble Lords do not need to rely on my saying that: it is the Government’s own list. Why, apart from Russia and Belarus, are they not included in the Bill? These 32 countries include China, where we have seen the gravest human rights violations committed against the Uighur Muslims, in Xinjiang: terrible human rights violations amounting to genocide, in the view of many people. How will the Government be able to assess the impact the Bill will have on the FCDO’s commitment, made by the then Foreign Secretary —a Conservative Foreign Secretary—in January 2021? That commitment was to
“work with the Cabinet Office to provide guidance and support to UK Government bodies to exclude suppliers where there is sufficient evidence of human rights violations in any of their supply chains”. 
This Bill seems to contradict the government policy I have just quoted. The FCDO list also includes Saudi Arabia, as I mentioned, which operates the kafala system of bonded labour. It is also where the UK Government announced last year that they are encouraging partnerships between Saudi and UK universities and collaboration on the transformation of the Saudi health system.
I urge the Government to address the significant concerns that your Lordships’ House has heard, including from my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury, that the Bill would undermine the ability of public bodies to consider legitimate concerns about human rights and workers’ rights that could represent legal, reputational and financial risks in their investment and procurement decisions. We need a lot more transparency than this  Bill is offering in its very partial, very one-sided approach to human rights globally and to the trade and diplomatic relations with the 32 countries the Government have identified as having human rights and democracy concerns. I read out their official list and it is not mine, although I happen to agree with the whole list.
When in 2013 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office first published the national action plan on business and human rights, setting out how it would implement the UN guiding principles—this was the Conservative Government—it committed to
“ensuring that in UK Government procurement human rights related matters are reflected appropriately when purchasing goods, works and services”.
In its updated plan, published in 2016, it committed to:
“Continue to ensure that UK Government procurement rules allow for human rights-related matters to be reflected in the procurement of public goods, works and services”.
Where does the Bill fit into that long-standing commitment? Where does it leave the long-standing human rights commitment that this Government have endorsed, following on from our last Labour Government? Where does it leave those policies in relation to human rights concerns?
As I mentioned, and as everybody knows, Russia and Belarus are referred to in the Bill, virtually as exceptions, against which public authorities presumably can impose boycotts and disinvestment decisions with government blessing. What about China, in respect of the treatment of Uighur Muslims? What about Myanmar, in respect of its terrible treatment of its Rohingya Muslims? Why are they not mentioned in the Bill?
The Minister might say, “Russia and its client state Belarus have invaded Ukraine; that’s why they are referred to in this Bill”. I support the Government’s policy on Ukraine, as does the Labour Party, but what I said in my speech in the foreign affairs debate—the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, replied and did not allow me to correct his misrepresentation of what I said—and I repeat now, is that many people in global South countries, although I do not agree, see our position on Israeli policy in Gaza as completely hypocritical compared with our position on Ukraine. Like it or not, they do. It is creating a serious geopolitical divide, and as a British Government, regardless of who happens to be in charge of that Government, we will find it difficult in the future to repair that bridge.
Half of African countries have not supported our position on Ukraine, and many feel—as I learned at first hand, spending Christmas and New Year in South Africa—that we are being totally hypocritical on Gaza. I think the two are different because it was the pernicious pogrom on 7 October that provoked the Israeli response, which has got completely out of hand. It was very different from the unilateral decision by Putin to invade Ukraine. Nevertheless, there is a fundamental contradiction in the Bill regarding certain countries, notably Russia and Belarus.
I will leave aside for the moment the question of the Occupied Territories and the settlements, which are illegal under international law, as this Government have recognised. The Bill is not consistent on human rights matters. It is a shoddy, shabby, shameless Bill and, as I explained at Second Reading, it would have  rendered the Anti-Apartheid Movement stillborn. All the public bodies that rallied to its boycott campaign and its support of Nelson Mandela’s freedom would have been prevented from doing so under the Bill. That is why I think it is so reprehensible.
I hope the Government will accept my noble friend’s Amendment 19, because it would at least begin to repair some of the damage.

Baroness Deech: My Lords, the analogies in discussion around the Bill are being pushed too far. The Bill is about procurement and investment. When student unions sit in, they are not doing procurement and investment. It is only when student unions start spending their money in contravention of charity law—to which they are subject—that they may be beginning to breach the law.
The Bill is not about curbing freedom of speech—far from it. As far as the South Africa analogy goes, the point of those sanctions was to bring an end to that particular regime. The point about the BDS movement and sanctioning Israel is not just to change the regime; it is calling for the eventual end of the state—as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, knows, because in the past he has called, in print, for the dismantling of Israel.

Lord Hain: I have not called for the dismantling of the State of Israel. I was a Middle East Minister for the Government and conducted diplomacy with the Israeli Prime Minister in 2000, trying to repair the damage from the collapse of Camp David. I support the right of Israel to exist, as I support the right of the Palestinians to have their own state. Please do not misrepresent me.

Baroness Deech: I am glad that the noble Lord has changed his mind—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness Deech: I have it in print, from many years ago, but I am glad that it is no longer the case. I can share it with the noble Lord. The analogy should not be pushed that far.
I also note that a group called Muslim Vote, which has put 18 demands to Sir Keir Starmer, has as the 17th demand the throwing out of the Bill, which I think shows what the group understands the point of the Bill to be: simply that it might stand in the way of whatever its aims are in relation to Gaza.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: My Lords, part of the concern about the Bill is not its narrow scope but that it is extremely broad in its scope. Indeed, it would have a chill effect on decisions made across the country by decision-makers, fully consistent with their human rights obligations. I therefore support the thrust of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggests that it is not possible to define human rights. I think her Front Bench and previous Front Benches, going back a very long time, will disagree with her; the FCDO publishes annual human rights reports. Her disagreement is not necessarily with the Bill but with the Government.

Baroness Noakes: I merely said that it was not defined in Amendment 19.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: It does not need to be defined in Amendment 19 because it would adopt the normal practice of human rights, as defined in the definitions at the front of the Government’s annual report on human rights—which I am sure the noble Baroness reads on an annual basis, as I do.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, indicated, those human rights reports refer to a separate category of countries, the priority countries, and he named them: the A to Z is Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. The thrust of the Bill seems to suggest that, unless the Government, through legislation, put sanctions to limit trade with certain countries, any decision-makers would not be able to make any decisions about investing in that country. That is contrary to current practice with countries from A to Z on the priority list.
For example, other than the sanctions that exist against certain elements of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the Bill would prohibit a decision-maker in the United Kingdom deciding not to invest in a Taliban state-owned enterprise. That is extraordinary. Under this legislation, a decision-maker would be prohibited from making a decision about investing in a mining or a gold company in Zimbabwe, which has had many concerns over human trafficking and other human rights concerns. That is also extraordinary, because unless the Government have put in trade sanctions, the Bill will prohibit any other decision-making.

Lord Hain: I very much support what the noble Lord said about Zimbabwe. He will know that there was a lot of corruption in the Marange diamond mines, with Government Ministers taking a rake-off from those diamonds. We should be boycotting diamonds from conflict zones such as that, or where corruption is involved—there are many other examples in Africa. I very much support the noble Lord’s point. The Bill would stop public authorities doing that.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Not only do I agree with him but it goes beyond that. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the point for me. Where bribery or labour-related misconduct are concerned, unless the Schedule relates to those, and there are general human rights concerns stated in the priority countries list, a decision-maker who uses the priority list—or, indeed, those issues that have been campaigned on, such as blood diamonds as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and my noble friend Lord Oates—would be in breach of law. That cannot be right, so I would be grateful if the Minister could put my mind at rest.

Lord Warner: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord; I am trying to be helpful. It seems to me that it is even worse than he is saying. Clause 4(1) means that a democratically elected person could not even publish a statement saying that, had it been lawful, he or she would have done X or Y. It is not just that they cannot do it; they cannot even talk about  doing it, even though they have been democratically elected by much of their population to take action in a moral and ethical way.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: I am most grateful to the noble Lord as that leads on to my next question. It relates to those who are democratic figures in those countries and, indeed, our country.
As regards this country, my reading of this legislation is that, if I, in Parliament, call on the Government to sanction, let us say, a foreign Government’s Minister, or an enterprise or a body operating in another country—as I have done regularly in relation to the Wagner Group, by calling on British enterprises not to trade with those enterprises owned by the Wagner Group —I would be a person under this Bill whom a body would have to disregard. Not only are the Government seeking the nonsense that decision-makers should set aside due diligence on human rights, they are seeking to neuter parliamentarians raising the very concerns that we have raised on a regular basis.
I remind the Minister why this is so important: on 12 occasions, I had called for the proscription of the Wagner Group, and called on any British enterprises to desist from having any relationship with it, before the Government made the decision to proscribe it. Up until the point that the Government made the decision to proscribe the group, which I supported, I was in contravention of this Bill. I was in contravention of it on all the occasions that I called on the Government to do what I asked them to do, which they then did.
The nonsense of this legislation gets serious when it comes to Parliament raising human rights concerns about other countries. One country on the list is the DRC. A country not on the list is Rwanda. I have raised human rights concerns about the March 23 group in the conflict between Rwanda and the DRC. I am prohibited from calling on any British bodies not to trade with a group that is not currently proscribed by the British Government.
I refuse to be neutered in this Chamber, by this Bill, on raising human rights concerns. The Leader of the House is shaking his head from a sedentary position as to how I might be neutered by this Bill. I am sure that he has read the Bill. I am allowing him to intervene on me to explain why I am wrong in my interpretation of this Bill.

Baroness Noakes: I—

Lord Purvis of Tweed: I am talking about not the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but the Leader. No, the Leader prefers to shake his head and not to intervene. In his absence, I can think of no better deputy than the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.

Baroness Noakes: I will answer the noble Lord’s question: he is not a “decision-maker” for the purpose of this Bill.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: I am not a decision-maker for the purpose of this Bill but, under Clause 1(7)(b) of this Bill, I am considered to be a “person”. A decision- maker making a decision based on what I asked them to do would be prohibited. Now the noble Baroness is shaking her head. Why would I not be considered a “person” under Clause 1(7)(b)?

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I am not going to waste the time of the House getting into these nitpicking debates. The noble Lord is not covered by this Bill.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: I do not think that it is nitpicking. I would be considered a person when a body was making a decision based on what I called them to do. I know that I am not a decision-maker, nor am I a Minister of the Crown, nor am I an exempted officeholder, but I would be considered a person calling on bodies to act. If bodies choose to act on what I say, they are currently prohibited under this from acting.

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: The central point the noble Lord is seeking to make is that he will not be neutered. He would not be neutered because this Bill does not prevent any person seeking to influence a decision-maker. What it will do is prevent the decision-maker acting on those considerations if they are contrary to the Bill. The noble Lord can say what he likes here, in the street or anywhere else. This is a totally futile point.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: I am grateful that Hansard will record the contradictory nature of the noble Lord’s intervention on me, when it comes to the nonsensical nature of the point of seeking to influence groups. Let me turn to why—

Lord Collins of Highbury: I am hesitant to interrupt an interruption, but I will. One of the issues we have discussed—it is about Clause 4 as well—is what hat somebody is wearing. For example, a leader of a council might go to a political conference and argue a particular policy. He is a decision-maker but is not performing a decision-making function. The people who might hear his speech at that political conference might think, “He is our leader; he will influence us”, so there is an impact on people being able to advocate particular policies. Is that not true?

Lord Purvis of Tweed: I think it is. Other noble Lords may think not. I am looking forward to the Minister’s response to make sure that this is clear.
I wish to move the Committee on to a specific question about British International Investment. That is a body which receives its funding from government—from the taxpayer—but it is charged with making investment decisions in emerging economies. It operates under its ethical investment policy. It has a toolkit and operates under its own set of compliance rules when it comes to how it defines human rights. It takes international obligations under its co-ordination. That policy is not set by Ministers and is not determined by the Government. It makes its own, independent decisions on which countries it invests in.
British International Investment could choose, under its toolkit, not to invest in any of the human rights priority countries. My reading of this Bill is that this will be prohibited. Unless the Government specifically state that BII should not make investment decisions, BII would be in the scope of this Bill. That would be another very retrograde step for the UK with a  development institution such as BII leading the charge on international human rights determinations for investments. I would be grateful if the Minister could state that BII is specifically exempt from this Bill.

Lord Sentamu: My Lords, I was not at Second Reading because, as some of you know, I have been away for six months for reasons I will not explain.
The argument goes on from side to side, but the simple answer for me lies not just in the Bill but in the Explanatory Notes on economic activities of public bodies overseas. In the background to this legislation, we are told by those who prepared it that, if people argue that there should be no investment in Uganda—let me just give that as an example, as it is the country I come from—because of a number of human rights questions, the public body should not agree to that if the Government’s policy is different.
I find the Explanatory Notes absolutely disturbing for any democratic body. Many noble Lords know that I led a campaign against Robert Mugabe’s regime. In fact, I cut up my dog collar and never wore it for nine years and nine months. Some people would have said, “You are an archbishop of the Church of England, so you are part of a public body. The Government have not stated that you could do such and such a thing; therefore you will be in breach”. I find this sentence disturbing. There may be those who want, for example, to say that we must disinvest from a particular body, country or place because it is breaching part of our understanding and that sanctions should be brought, but paragraph 6 states:
“The Government has set out its view that it is not appropriate for public bodies to accede to such campaigns except where to do so is positively consistent with the UK’s foreign policy as determined by the Government. The Conservative Party manifesto for the 2019 Election included a commitment to ‘ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries.’ This Bill is intended to fulfil that commitment”.
Friends, in a free democracy, should we rule out public bodies that may feel, for example, that they should not invest such an amount of money and have our people working with a Government who are oppressing their people from doing so unless it is consistent with government policy? Sometimes opposition to certain things tells us who we are. I trust, I think because of our parliamentary democracy, that things will be challenged in both Houses but, for heaven’s sake, why impose such a thing on a public body? Are we simply saying that the Government cannot err, cannot turn a blind eye, cannot behave in a way that their citizens may find quite difficult? Some of us campaigned against the South African apartheid Government. At that time, there was a particular sort of Government who did not agree with sanctions. I remember arriving in Cambridge. We wanted to boycott green apples from South Africa. There was no way of doing this, but some of us decided to go to Sainsbury’s and announce as loudly as we could, “We are not buying these green apples from South Africa”. Do you know what happened? We never saw those green apples any more in Sainsbury’s. That is democracy. You cannot ban a public body from engaging in an activity which those who belong to it may feel very strongly about.
The Bill is trying to do something, but it is the way it is drafted. The explanation given has a chilling effect on a lot of us, because it suggests that the Government, of whatever shape, will always get it right, that, somehow, they have become omnicompetent and omniscient, and that there are no areas where because of political pressure they will not do it. I know where the Bill is trying to go, but it needs far greater revision if we are going to protect the rule of law in this country and not suggest that the Government always get it right. Some of our foreign policies have not been good. Somehow, we have spoken. Noble Lords have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said about some people from Africa. I find it disturbing that they would think that Ukraine should not be supported because all of them—and I am being honest—are getting a lot of money from Russia and are being supported by China, so any criticism of China and Russia, as far as the African continent is concerned, is very bad, but they will find it very easy to say, “What about Gaza? Why aren’t you doing so much about it?”.
Friends, all Governments are made up of frail human beings like you and me, and we can all err. You cannot, it seems to me, put this into a Bill and explain it in such a way. Otherwise, the freedom that some noble Lords here have worked hard to bring to my continent to hold Governments to account will look absolutely self-contradictory—as though we are willing to say one thing to them over there, but we want to muzzle those over here so that they cannot speak because they happen to be a public body. I rejoice that, at the moment, I am still part of the Church of England, and we have open debates. Some of our decisions take a long time to reach, but at least people are allowed to voice their views. If you shut them up, you create a pressure cooker that is totally unnecessary.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, I will make three short points, the first following on from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. I made the point at Second Reading: I find it really disturbing that the Minister said we must speak “with one voice internationally”. For me, that is not democracy; it smacks of totalitarianism. There is a multitude of voices in a democracy, not a single one.
Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, finished her speech with reference to a Muslim group that called for the Bill to be thrown out, and she seemed to imply that that meant it was against the State of Israel. There are myriad groups that want the Bill thrown out. Many of us made the same point at Second Reading: we do not think this is a proper Bill, but we are working with it, and what one thinks of it says nothing about one’s attitude to Israel. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, called it “improper” because it is so badly drafted.
Thirdly, and going to the substance of the amendments that we are discussing, my noble friend, in effect, held out an olive branch to the Government by taking the Bill at face value. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said about the statements of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights, but  let us take that at its face value. If the Government genuinely believe that the Bill is compatible with the ECHR, why should they oppose what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and my noble friend put forward in their amendments? They would strengthen and give substance to the declarations about human rights.
I hope that when the Minister comes to respond to my noble friend, she will take his amendment in the spirit that he put it to her and be willing to discuss whether it is a way forward. Although many of us dislike the Bill completely, we could at least work on the basis of that amendment.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: My Lords, it is not my usual role, but I shall be a bit more conciliatory than other speakers. Although I see the Bill as very heavy-handed, almost draconian, and it should never have been brought to your Lordships’ House, at least we have an option now. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, pointed out, the House can work together. The Minister herself said that she values this House’s expertise. We have not noticed that over the past few years, because virtually everything we suggest gets thrown out. Amendments 19 and 48 would make the Bill less heavy-handed and would mean that public authorities could make decisions of their own when they saw illegitimate human rights abuses. I do not see why anyone would want to reject that idea.
I say to the Government: bring your own amendments if you want to, but, in essence, repeat what we are trying to say here and, perhaps, make this Bill less awful.

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: My Lords, I will come back to the text of the proposed amendment. I hope it is in order if I use my short intervention essentially to ask the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, a series of questions. Obviously, he need not reply now, but I just wish to understand how this amendment is meant to work. I will leave the broader points to one side for the moment, although I always want to ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, with whom I often disagree, remains proudly unneutered in everything he wants to say, here and elsewhere.
As I understand Amendment 19 and the proposed clause, it seeks to enable a public authority to publish policy criteria. Those policy criteria, as we see in proposed new subsection (4B), relate to
“disinvestment in cases concerning contravention of human rights”.
The public authority’s criteria have to do two things. First, as the noble Lord said, they “must be applied consistently” to all countries and, secondly, they must be consistent with the guidance published by the Secretary of State, although we are not helped at all as to what that guidance would, might or should be. So let us assume—

Lord Collins of Highbury: Can I interrupt the noble Lord? I was going to do it at the end, but it might help the Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said that this would create loopholes, and the important point I wanted to make is that there is nothing wrong with public bodies taking ethical investment and procurement decisions. The reason there is nothing wrong in that is that the Government  advocate it. As my noble friend Lord Hain said, we have the Government’s current national action plan on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights —and by the way, the Minister says in the introduction that the Government firmly believe that
“the promotion of business, and the respect for human rights, go hand in hand”.
So we are being consistent here, in this amendment, with current government policy.
My noble friend read it out; I will quickly repeat that, in current guidance, the recommendation of the Government is to
“continue to ensure that UK Government procurement rules allow for human rights-related matters to be reflected in the procurement of public goods, works and services, taking into account the 2014 EU Public Procurement Directives”—
the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned this—
“and Crown Commercial Service guidance on compliance with wider international obligations when letting public contracts”.
So I am not reinventing something; it is there. We have good policy; let us make sure it is reflected in this legislation.

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for setting that out so clearly. It brings me to the question I hope he might be able to pick up later, so that I can really understand how this works. We have a public authority, which publishes a set of policy criteria relating to disinvestment in cases concerning contravention of human rights. As he has just set out—and certainly implied by what he just said—it would not be required, for example, to adopt the ECHR in full; it could highlight certain things.
What would happen if a local or public authority decided to say, “We are not going to disinvest or have a policy of disinvesting from countries which do not, for example, allow gay marriage; we will not have a policy of disinvesting from countries that discriminate against women, but we will have a policy, which we will apply consistently throughout the world, of disinvesting from countries that are in control of occupied or disputed territory”? Under the noble Lord’s approach, would that be permitted?

Lord Shipley: Will the noble Lord give way for a moment? This discussion is extremely important, because I do not interpret Amendment 19 as the noble Lord is interpreting it. He says that there could be a statement, and it would have to be applied consistently to all countries. But the amendment also says that it must be in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord has not mentioned the fact that guidance to underpin what a local authority was doing would be in place.

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: Forgive me, but I think I did mention the guidance right at the beginning of my remarks. Indeed, I made the point that I did not understand that the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, had identified what that guidance would, should or might contain—so I think we are on the same page.

Lord Collins of Highbury: Sorry to interrupt, but I thought I did, at the beginning, when I moved the amendment. Sadly, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, did not refer to my opening remarks when I moved it.  I made it absolutely clear that there is a difference between a public body having an ethical investment and procurement policy and an organisation which, as some individuals are trying to do, seeks to target Israel alone, and have standards for Israel that are completely different from those for other countries. I made that absolutely clear.

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: To be absolutely clear, my question, which I hope the noble Lord will pick up when he responds, is this. My putative public authority has a consistent policy, which it applies consistently to all countries around the world, of not disinvesting merely because a foreign country does not allow gay marriage, or treats women in a discriminatory fashion, but of disinvesting when a foreign country is in control of occupied or disputed territory. Would that be permitted, or not permitted, under the noble Lord’s amendment? I look forward to his answer in due course.

Lord Mann: My Lords, there are a couple of observations, one of which has been rather lost in the debate. The first one has not. I merely make the observation that I am increasingly concerned by the concept that the implementation of legislation could be at the discretion of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—whether it is run by Robin Cook, or the noble Lord, Lord Hain, or the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, or Ernie Bevin.
There are different flavours of Foreign Office, but my observation of the Foreign Office over the years is that it often manages to face two ways at the same time. Indeed, it might well regard that as a key part of the art of diplomacy. One can therefore read into Foreign Office policy almost anything one wants to do at any one time. The Foreign Office often makes quite a virtue of presenting a particular side to one group of people and another side to another group of people. However great those running the Foreign Office of the day might be, they are liable to change in the future. So I question whether that, as a basis for legislation, is sensible.
The key point I want to make is one that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, as I understood him, at the beginning. Governments come and go. There will be a general election. Who knows who will be in power after that? There will be another one after that, in however many years—perhaps five years. Who knows —and who knows who that Government will be? There will be different flavours of government—but legislation, unless it is altered by Parliament, will remain.
The question of double standards in foreign policy is a fundamental part of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism—a definition that was adopted first by the United Kingdom, in 2017, before any other country, but which has now been adopted by many countries. Pertinent to this debate is the fact that it has been adopted by virtually every political party represented at Westminster, including the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats.
Within it, the concept of double standards against the State of Israel, judging the State of Israel in ways in which one would not judge any other state, is rather fundamental. It is there, I guess, particularly because  of what people have said, for example, in the United Nations. I am not talking about the legitimacy or otherwise of any specific United Nations vote or decision, but what one can objectively demonstrate is that there has been a huge number of decisions relating to the State of Israel, far outweighing, usually, every other country in the world put together. That, I think, could rationally be argued as therefore being a double standard in approach—of unduly concentrating on one member state of the United Nations and not being equal handed. The IHRA definition is quite specific that that should not happen, which is not the same as to say that one should not be vehemently critical, if one chooses to be, of the State of Israel, its Government or its policies. Many people are, including many people in the Israeli Knesset. It does not state that that is in any way illegitimate or anti-Semitic, but it does say that double standards should not apply.
Listening to and reading what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has put forward, it seems to me that he hits on a conundrum within the way the Bill is currently presented. To have any impact, the Bill has to last the course of time, including across elections and different Governments. Therefore, if there is a double standard within it, that is a problem, in my view, in terms of tackling anti-Semitism. If it contradicts the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism—while that is a working definition and should not be, as some people have misguidedly presumed, turned into law in itself, because that is not the purpose of it—it seems to me that what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, is proposing, to assist the Government in what they are attempting to do, cannot merely be dismissed as something that is not of consequence. As I read it and listen to how he introduced it, it seems to me that it potentially deals with that conundrum and therefore potentially strengthens the Bill’s ability to stop double standards in relation to the State of Israel. I regard that as a worthy objective, which again makes no comment, positive or negative, by me or anyone else, on the actions of the Government of the State of Israel, but does in relation to how we frame this legislation.
I would be very interested, having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has put forward, to see how the Government could actually defeat his argument using the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism as their reference point.

Baroness Deech: My Lords, as we speak, the double standards are in operation on many campuses in this country, where there are sit-ins in relation to one country but not, for example, in relation to Russia. As a footnote, I would like to substantiate, in case there is any doubt, what I said earlier in relation to the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, to Israel. In his article in the Guardian in 1976, when he was a young man, he says it twice. It concludes:
“The present Zionist state is by definition racist and will have to be dismantled”.
I just clarify that that was his article in the Guardian.

Lord Hain: Since this has been raised—and I am not sure who I am intervening on—that was a long time ago. I do not withdraw the fact that there are  many features of the State of Israel of which I am critical, not least in its dual citizenship law, where certain citizens are regarded as full citizens and others are not. That is a racist thing to be practising—but the noble Baroness suggested that I was questioning the right of Israel to exist. I have not done that, and I do not believe that, and she should not suggest it.

Lord Leigh of Hurley: My Lords, to bring us back to Amendment 19, I thought it was a probing amendment—but it seems that perhaps it is a serious one, given the endorsements of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, so let us think about it. I am querying it only because, if it comes back, it might allow the noble Lord, Lord Collins, to refine and consider it further.
I would add to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. For example, let us assume that there is an egregious gay rights violation in some country, and a local council gets very agitated about it, responds to pressure and announces that it will no longer do business with, or procure works or services from, this country, because it abuses gay rights. Under this amendment, it would then have to apply that to every country that does not fully respect gay rights, so if it wanted to buy product from the Middle East then the only place it could go to would be Israel.

Lord Shipley: My Lords, this has been an extremely helpful debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, identified, there is a conundrum in the Bill. The Minister may wish to reflect on the discussion that has taken place. She said after the first group that she valued the expertise of this House and would go away and think about how the Government would respond. I took that to mean that they may make changes on Report, which is theoretically likely to come in about three weeks’ time, but may take longer.
I have concluded, having listened to so many opinions—I am not a signatory to Amendments 19 or 48, though I have huge sympathy with them—from my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, that it would be useful if the Minister would consider trying to bring all those opinions together into one place to talk further. That is the only way in which progress on this Bill will be made.
I think that I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, say that you cannot have local authorities setting foreign policy. I do not think local authorities want to do so, are doing so or have any ambition to do so. However, they are concerned about human rights and doing the right thing in their procurement and investment policies. Nevertheless, the issue must be discussed.
I took Amendment 19 to mean simply that a statement of policy relating to human rights would need to be considered by those seeking procurement or making investments, and that the statement may not single out individual nations and would therefore have to be applied consistently, as has been confirmed. However, it would have to be in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State. I find the concerns we have been hearing against Amendment 19 unfounded. The only solution I can see to this is that the offer  made at the outset by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, should be taken up by the Minister. It would be really helpful if that could happen, because otherwise the passage of the Bill on Report will get more and more difficult.

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: I invite the noble Lord to look at proposed new subsection (4D) because, with the greatest of respect, it is not correct to say that the policy would have to be “in accordance with” the Secretary of State’s guidance. The amendment says only that they must “have regard to” the Secretary of State’s guidance. This is not nitpicking; there is a really important distinction in law between having to follow guidance and merely having to have regard to it. That is one of the reasons why I was asking the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, those questions.

Lord Shipley: I understand the noble Lord’s point. I am quoting from the Member’s explanatory statement which is part of Amendment 19 in the Third Marshalled List of Amendments.

Lord Roborough: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint your Lordships’ Committee after so many questions asked of my noble friend the Minister. But I am the Minister representing His Majesty’s Government on this group of amendments. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and my noble friends Lord Wolfson and Lord Leigh for refocusing the House on these two amendments. I will answer as many of the broader questions as I have time for after addressing these myself.
Let me begin with Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a review of the Bill’s compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998, and in particular Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within six months of Royal Assent. As my noble friend the Minister has set out, the Bill will apply to public authorities as defined in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. In the exercise of their public functions these bodies do not have their own rights under the Human Rights Act or the ECHR, including under Article 10. The Bill does not apply to individuals and their private functions; therefore, it will not infringe on any individual’s rights under the ECHR.
As for the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about compatibility, the Government remain strongly committed to the UK’s long and proud tradition of free speech and to the ECHR’s Article 10 right to freedom of expression. The Minister has signed a statement of the Bill’s compatibility with ECHR rights. On sharing legal advice, His Majesty’s Government do not share legal advice, but we do act on it.
Nothing in the Bill goes against the European Convention on Human Rights. The ban will apply only to bodies that are public authorities under the Human Rights Act 1998—

Lord Warner: With due respect to the Minister— I am sorry to interrupt when he is keeping to his script—the point I was making was that the certificate  that the Secretary of State or Minister signs on the face of the Bill does not just cover the actions of public bodies, it covers all aspects of that particular piece of legislation. I am arguing that there are parts of that legislation that make it impossible to sign with good heart that compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights—and, indeed, the Human Rights Act 1988. It is not just the issues around public bodies, it is about the totality of that piece of legislation being compliant. I gave some examples where it was not compliant. I am very happy to meet the Minister to give him another half a dozen in which it is not compliant. I was asking which legal Minister signed off this as compliant with the Human Rights Act.

Lord Roborough: My noble friend the Minister has signed the statement of the Bill’s compatibility and is comfortable with that. If the noble Lord, Lord Warner, would like to share his specific concerns further to this, I would be happy to look at them.
The Government remain strongly committed to the UK’s long and proud tradition of free speech and to the ECHR. My noble friend the Minister, on bringing this legislation to the House, confirmed that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the convention rights.
Let me now turn to Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury. His Majesty’s Government appreciate the offer of co-operation and a meeting. We would certainly take him up on that very generous offer to hear out his concerns further. Amendment 19 would exempt decisions from the ban that have been made in accordance with a statement of policy relating to human rights produced by a public authority. The Secretary of State would be required to produce guidance on the content of such statements to which public authorities would be required to have regard—a significant word, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Wolfson.
We are all in agreement that human rights abuses have no place in public supply chains or investments by public bodies. However, the Government have two fundamental concerns about this amendment. The first is that it would lead to a proliferation of public authorities developing their own foreign policy positions, which is in opposition to the philosophy of the Bill. My noble friend the Minister has spoken before about how foreign policy is a matter for the UK Government and not for other public authorities. It would not be appropriate for public authorities to produce their own policies on human rights in relation to other nations.
I acknowledge that public authorities would be required to have regard to guidance published by the Secretary of State when exercising the exception, but this would have the opposite effect of that intended by the Bill, leaving public authorities distracted by pressure from lobby groups on the details of their human rights statement. Many public authorities with no interest or expertise in such debates would come under pressure to produce statements or explain why they did not have one. Most public authorities do not want to get involved in these divisive foreign policy debates and  want to remain focused on delivering their public functions. This is a narrowly drafted Bill that places a narrow restriction on public authorities’ investments and procurement decisions. It would not be a proportionate response to place additional burdens on public authorities.
The Government’s second concern is that the amendments could leave public authorities able to set out apparently general policies in their statements with the intention of targeting particular states to boycott. This would represent a huge loophole in the ban and would fundamentally undermine the manifesto commitment.
To further demonstrate why Amendment 19 is unnecessary, I will touch briefly on the work that the Government are already doing to improve human rights standards in public sector supply chains. As noble Lords will know, the Procurement Act already contains a robust regime for the exclusion of suppliers which are unfit to hold public contracts. This includes serious risks such as modern slavery and human trafficking, and the Cabinet Office has recently strengthened the definitions of these terms in our guidance. We have mirrored most of the grounds for exclusion listed by the Procurement Act in the drafting of the Bill. Many public authorities will also be subject to the Procurement Act, and therefore it is vital that, where possible, we remain consistent with this regime to ensure that contracting authorities do not have to navigate between two conflicting pieces of legislation.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, there are already sufficient measures in procurement legislation allowing for public authorities to consider a supplier’s misconduct in awarding a contract. The ban contains a number of exceptions for considerations relating to labour-related misconduct, human trafficking, bribery, competition law infringement, and environmental misconduct. The Bill will not stop public authorities complying with sanctions.
Specifically, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, need be concerned about being considered a public authority under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, as this specifically excludes Members of the House of Lords and the other place.
On the last of the noble Lord’s questions, the Bill will not prevent the adoption of ESP requirements, which he was questioning under the BII exemption, that are not specific to a country.
The open principles of the UK’s procurement regime mean that we do not look to exclude suppliers from entire nations without proper consideration of whether a supplier itself is involved in abuse. Indeed, in some cases taking this indiscriminate approach can fall contrary to our international obligations. This amendment would give public authorities too broad a discretion to apply such blanket boycotts. That would be unfair on suppliers acting ethically in these countries.
Additionally, it is important to note that the Bill will not prevent public authorities implementing general policies in regard to human rights that do not single out countries or territories specifically. Therefore, if the noble Lord does not intend to allow public authorities to engage in blanket boycotts, it seems that we are reliant on our policy on this matter.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Why is British International Investment singled out as a body which is able to operate its own independent human rights impact assessment for where it chooses to invest, while other decision-makers cannot?

Lord Roborough: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I will need to write to him on the specific case of BII, as I do not have the details to hand.
In answer to one of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the Bill is fulfilling a manifesto commitment to prevent BDS influencing public authorities in undermining community cohesion, which is why Israel is named in the Bill and why there are currently, as I believe, no exemptions. As I think the noble Lord is aware, we are intending to add exemptions under statutory instrument following the passing of the Bill.

Lord Collins of Highbury: We are going to address the issue in the next group, so I am reluctant to make this point, but it is not just Israel that is listed in the Bill.

Lord Roborough: I apologise for my error and take the noble Lord’s correction. I have tried to focus my comments on the amendments and the arguments put forward today. I am conscious that there have been a lot of very important points made and a lot of questions asked. I have tried to answer the ones that I can, and I will write to noble Lords where I have not picked them up.

Lord Collins of Highbury: This has been an incredibly useful discussion and debate, but this is not a probing amendment. It is an attempt to bring two sides of the House together. I made it very clear in my opening remarks that we oppose the BDS campaigns we have seen. I do not accept them. They are very damaging. I think I made the point that they have sought to target Israel alone, hold it to different standards, question its right to exist—which is wrong—and equate the actions of the Israeli Government with Jewish people, in doing so creating the very hate that my noble friend raised.
To be honest, I feel as if I am in a Catch-22 situation. On the one hand, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, says that there are loopholes, but this is not a restrictive, confined piece of legislation, dealing with BDS campaigns specifically. It has much wider implications. Everyone keeps talking about public bodies making foreign policy. No one questions the right of the Government to make foreign policy. The Government’s duty is to speak for the whole country on foreign policy —no one doubts that—but the Government have placed a duty on public bodies to have ethical human rights considerations in their investment and procurement policies.
We will come on to it in other groups, and I know we keep raising these things, but the sad thing is that the Bill damages our foreign policy. It will implicate us in undermining the very resolutions that we have tabled and supported at the United Nations. That is why we are so concerned, and that is why this amendment,  far from giving public bodies the responsibility to decide on foreign policy, agrees with this Government when they speak about—I will quote again, because I think it is really important—
“belief that the promotion of business, and the respect for human rights, go hand in hand”.
When it comes to the statement that a Secretary of State may produce as guidance, is it that public bodies “will have” or “must have” regard to it? I have had many debates on previous legislation about what that might mean, particularly over codes of practice, as the noble Baroness knows, so I am happy to enter into legal dialogue about what that means. It is not unusual to require public bodies to follow that sort of guidance, and we can come up with words for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, asked questions about the Occupied Territories. We have an existing policy on the Occupied Territories, so if a public body says it will not invest in the Occupied Territories, that is in accordance with the guidance issued by this Government. If it says it is going to ban any investment in Israel, that would be in breach of the code or whatever guidance, because we are against singling out Israel.
Somebody mentioned gay rights. I have been a campaigner for global gay rights for many years, and one of the things I have resisted doing is advocating blanket boycotts because I know that, where we have investment and contacts, the leverage, guidance and engagement we can have can make a big difference. We have changed people’s attitudes through that. The problem with blanket boycotts is that they have the complete opposite effect.

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: I am grateful to the noble Lord for, I think, giving an answer to my question. My understanding, therefore, is that the answer to my question is yes. The public authority could make the distinction that I identified. In other words, under this amendment a public authority could refuse to trade with Israel on human rights grounds but could none the less trade with Saudi Arabia. That would, as I understand it, be the consequence of the argument. Have I understood correctly?

Lord Collins of Highbury: No, the noble Lord is not right. That is not what I said. We have guidance about specific investment in the Occupied Territories. That is what the Government issue now. Why is that so confusing?

Lord Leigh of Hurley: What, then, is the effect of proposed new subsection 4B(b) if not a blanket ban?

Lord Collins of Highbury: Do you mean “must have regard to”?

Lord Leigh of Hurley: Proposed new subsection 4B(b).

Lord Collins of Highbury: We currently have guidance on human rights and investment decisions. On other groups of amendments we will discuss the whole question of environmental, social and governance  issues. When a public body is taking into account investment decisions, as a private company would, it takes into account those sorts of policies. We will come on to pension schemes in a later group. The problem we have at the moment is that this debate is on BDS but we are actually talking about ethical investment policies. No one is concerned about those issues when we have general debates about procurement and ethical policy. This comes down to specific targeting campaigns that are not to do with human rights.
I strongly defend the right of Israel to exist. I strongly defend the right of Israel to defend itself. Those two things go together. If a campaign of BDS is saying that Israel occupied territories in 1948—many of these campaigns talk not about 1973 but about 1948—I do not agree with that. Israel exists and has a mandate to exist. We must respect that, and I strongly believe in it. But when we come to human rights and investment policy decisions, the Government are more than capable of giving guidance on that, because they do so at the moment through the UN guiding principles, the Modern Slavery Act and all the other things that we have done. The Procurement Act even has paragraphs in it as well. So it is not impossible to have the sort of guidance that we are advocating in this amendment.

Lord Leigh of Hurley: I simply say that the noble Lord has criticised the wording and language of the Bill quite specifically. If this amendment is to be presented at a later stage, proposed new subsection 4B(b) does not work because it is a blanket ban.

Lord Collins of Highbury: I am more than happy to discuss the wording of this amendment and this proposal. We are not advocating blanket bans. There must be a reason for a ban. The FCDO issues a list of countries that have human rights issues—some, such as North Korea, have very clear issues—but they are not all countries where you would ban engagement or investment, or say, “That’s the end of the road”. An ethical investment policy needs to look at a range of issues—basically, the ESG issues that we will come on to in later groups. I do not want to go through them now.
The important thing is that we have a Bill before us that unacceptably widens the scope of dealing with BDS. People have asked whether it will stop them dealing with the ethical issues that the Government have asked them to deal with. Many people in the other place raised China. Who would advocate a blanket ban on China? You could not—our trade ties are so huge—but there are areas that we can certainly exercise concern about, particularly in Xinjiang, where we are strongly advocating sanctions against the local government and local officials who have been violating human rights.
One of the really good things about the Government’s human rights sanctions legislation is that it is not a blanket ban; we can target and look at different means. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that we do not, in dealing with a genuine concern about BDS campaigns, suddenly broaden it out to restricting people’s right to condemn the Government of Israel for certain actions.
My biggest concern is about the chilling effect of this legislation—that it will make public bodies turn away from duties relating to those broader human rights concerns. That is why we are committed to sitting down with Ministers to see whether we can adapt this proposal, get rid of some of the wide-ranging elements and make the case for ethical investment policies so that we condemn BDS campaigns but support the campaign that the Government have had over many years to ensure that human rights are a consideration.
This has been an extremely welcome debate in trying to create cross-party engagement on this amendment. I hope we will have more time before Report to get those discussions under way and see whether there is an opportunity to come forward with a cross-party consensus on this issue. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 19 withdrawn.

Amendment 20

Lord Warner: Moved by Lord Warner
20: Clause 3, page 3, line 7, leave out subsection (7)

Lord Warner: My Lords, despite the last debate, this amendment brings us to the heart of what I regard as a misguided Bill: Clause 3(7), which effectively provides the State of Israel with a considerable, unique protection, almost in perpetuity and certainly until new legislation is passed to overturn it. I will make three main points to justify the changes to this provision.
First, the primary justification for this extraordinary legislation is that boycotts, disinvestments and other such campaigns not only undermine UK foreign policy but lead to
“appalling antisemitic rhetoric and abuse”,
in the words of the departmental press notice launching this Bill. Yet, many groups in the Jewish diaspora have said that the Bill will not combat anti-Semitism. The Government’s claim that it will has been convincingly challenged by evidence produced for parliamentarians by the organisation Jews for Justice for Palestinians. Its evidence demonstrates that the rise in anti-Semitic incidents is
“correlated closely with spikes of violence in Israel and Palestine, particularly with the major Israeli army attacks on Palestinian areas, not with boycott and divestment advocacy”.
It was that formidable campaigner against anti-Semitism, Dame Margaret Hodge, who said in the Commons that this legislation would increase anti-Semitism.
Secondly, alongside drafting a Bill that is more likely to increase anti-Semitism than reduce it, the Government seem to have used wording in Clause 3(7) that is at odds with the UK’s stated foreign policy, because it includes “the Occupied Palestinian Territories” and “the Occupied Golan Heights” in the protection given to Israel. By treating these two areas as part of Israel, the passage of the Bill would seem to mean that the UK is legitimising Israel permanently retaining two large swathes of territory obtained by acts of war. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who is unfortunately not in his place, Amnesty International, and others  have pointed out, this would mean that the Bill will violate UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which the UK voted for. The resolution declares Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, including east Jerusalem, as legally invalid and a clear violation of international law.
Thirdly, the Government’s claim for this legislation is that it makes it clear internationally that it is the Government who determine UK foreign policy, not protestors or other levels of government. Most people in this country and overseas would assume, then, that when the Foreign Secretary utters on policy towards Israel he speaks for the Government—therefore, they can rely on him to set out the current policy. With this in mind, I draw the Committee’s attention to a piece in the Times on 22 March with the headline:
“Gaza aid held up by arbitrary Israeli denials, says Cameron”.
In that piece, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is quoted as telling the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee that it was,
“‘an enormous frustration’ that aid had been ‘routinely held up waiting for Israeli permissions’”.
To make sure that his views were fully understood, the noble Lord seems to have gone on to say that:
“Israel’s ‘arbitrary denials’ of aid being sent to Gaza is now the ‘main blocker’ to providing humanitarian assistance”.
All this on top of suggesting, in February, that the UK could unilaterally recognise a Palestinian state in the aftermath of a ceasefire.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has accompanied his words with deeds, by imposing sanctions on extremist settlers in the Israeli-occupied West Bank who have violently attacked Palestinians. He went on to say:
“This behaviour is illegal and unacceptable … Too often, we see commitments made”—
by Israel—
“and undertakings given, but not followed through”.
I found the noble Lord’s views refreshingly frank, and rather similar to my own. However, I also found it difficult to reconcile them with the wording and timing of the Bill.
We are now in a rather bizarre situation. On the one hand, we have Michael Gove bringing forward a Bill to give unprecedented protection to the Israeli Government —I could, if I were unkind, say that Clause 3(7) could have been drafted by Mr Netanyahu and Likud. On the other hand, there is the Foreign Secretary laying into the same Government for blocking humanitarian aid to a territory in which thousands of women and children have been killed or displaced, and are starving, as a result of Israeli military action.
Any responsible public body decision-maker or international observer would be entitled to be confused about what the UK Government’s policy is toward the current Israeli Government. Should people heed Mr Gove’s Bill or the words and actions of the Foreign Secretary, who has actually seen what is going on in Israel and the occupied territories? What would the Minister’s advice be to any confused citizen? Perhaps she and her colleagues might want to further consider accepting my amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Oates: My Lords, I am pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in his Amendment 20, which, as he set out, would delete Clause 3(7) of the Bill. I do so because what is already a very bad Bill is made worse by this subsection. First, it singles out Israel as the only country which cannot be exempted from the provisions of the Bill, even should a future Government decide that such an exemption should be made. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, has set out why that is potentially problematic in relation to the IHRA anti-Semitism definition. Moreover, Ministers have frequently argued that legislation should not single out individual countries but rather should apply common principles. Clause 3(7) goes completely against that approach and, in doing so, sets a dangerous precedent. Like the noble Lord, Lord Warner, I seriously doubt that it will do anything to tackle anti-Semitism; in fact, it is most likely to be counterproductive.
Secondly, as we have heard, Clause 3(7) conflates Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, contradicting long-standing British-government policy and violating UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which was co-authored by the UK, voted for by the UK, and requires member states to distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. As far as I can see—and we have heard a lot about local government and other public bodies not setting foreign policy—the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is promoting legislation that directly contradicts UK Government policy and the UK-authored Security Council resolution as part of a Bill whose declared objective is to prevent public bodies contradicting government policy.
This contradiction of settled UK foreign policy has serious ramifications which Ministers are trying to avoid by pretending that the Bill is compliant with Resolution 2334. At Second Reading in the other place and in response to Dr Philippa Whitford, who asked why the Bill did not distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories as required by the resolution, Michael Gove stated that
“they are separated in the Bill. I am afraid the hon. Lady is wrong
His claim is apparently that the separation of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories between paragraphs (a) and line (b) of subsection (7) satisfies the requirements of Resolution 2334, but of course that is nonsense. The resolution does not call for the semantic separation of the State of Israel and the Palestinian territories; rather, it
“Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”.
It is absolutely clear that the “relevant dealings” of the Bill explicitly do not distinguish between the two, because subsection (7) applies equally to them. I hope the Minister will address this issue, because she seemed herself to stray towards this sort of Govian sophistry at Second Reading in this House.
For all those who want to see peace and security both for the people of Israel and the people of Palestine, Israel’s continued illegal occupation and illegal settlement  of the Palestinian territories is both a tragedy for the people of Palestine and a disaster for the people of Israel. To my mind, it is wrong to single out Israel, or, indeed, any other countries, from the provisions of the Bill, but to do so in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territories is not only wrong in principle but wrong in law and contrary to established UK foreign policy. It cannot be right for the Government to prevent public bodies exercising their legal and moral judgment about engaging in economic activities with settlements in those territories. Indeed, given that the settlements are illegal under international law, the Government appear intent on forcing public bodies to ignore their international law obligations. That is presumably why we get into all the confusion of the exemptions under paragraph 6 of the Schedule.
For years, the international community has been calling on Israel to halt the illegal settlements and end the occupation, and for both parties to cease violence and arrive at a peace settlement based on two states living side by side in peace and mutual respect. Yet in that time, successive Israeli Governments have seemed determined to deliver the maximum national humiliation for the Palestinian people. Settlements have expanded ever further and they have often stood aside in the face of settler violence. Those Palestinians who want a peaceful resolution with Israel have been consistently undermined. This in turn has empowered the violent extremists who have no desire for peaceful co-existence with Israel and who have flourished instead.
Clause 3(7) is deeply damaging, because it suggests to Israel that its conduct in the Occupied Palestinian Territories does not matter and that it is immune from any criticism from its friends, whatever it does and however it acts. That is not a demonstration of friendship; it is the encouragement of a dangerous delusion that will lead the region to ever greater disaster. We should cease encouraging that delusion. A good place to start would be to delete Clause 3(7) or, better still, to dispense with the Bill altogether.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I support the amendment introduced by my noble friend Lord Warner. It is conceivable that the Government’s objective of exempting the State of Israel—I say that carefully, the State of Israel—from the imposition of BDS, which I do not support, could be achieved with different drafting. However, to have introduced it in the way that it is introduced in Clause 3(7) is a mistake, and the mistake is compounded by mixing up completely different things: the State of Israel and the Occupied Territories, which certainly include the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. They should not be treated in the same way. They are not part of the State of Israel in the view of the British Government, though they are in the view of the present Israeli Government. I repeat, they are not in the view of the British Government part of the State of Israel. Within those Occupied Territories—Golan, east Jerusalem and the West Bank—there are internationally illegal settlements. Illegality is another category on which the British Government’s policy is quite clear—just read the Security Council resolution, which has been quoted. Mixing these things up together is, frankly, a solution of disaster. It will just doom this legislation by including it.
I am not trying to suggest that it would not be possible to do something, though I doubt very much whether specifically mentioning Israel is a wise thing in the first place. I agree with the Government that public bodies should not be making foreign policy, but I am not sure that specifying one country out of 194 where they particularly should not be making foreign policy is a very clever way of setting about that. If you took that away and tried to sort out these unhelpfully mixed-up elements, there might be a better chance of this Bill making progress. So long as they are all mixed up together, we will have a cat’s cradle of contradictions.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said that this Bill will increase anti-Semitism. That is one view. I prefer to observe what is actually happening. We only have to look at what is happening in universities at the moment; we will come on to universities in a later group.
If we look at what has been happening with the encampments that have been springing up in the UK following what has been happening in the US, they are vocally calling for boycott and divestment in relation to Israel—and, indeed, quite a lot worse. This is a very live issue. It is causing much harm on campuses for Jewish students, who are clear that there has been a significant increase in anti-Semitism since this has started. This is not theory; it is actually happening.
Israel is always the focal point for BDS campaigns. The BDS movement itself came into being to attack Israel. I am glad that we are aligned with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on the need to protect Israel from those activities. From my perspective, if the Bill does nothing else, it should try to protect Israel from boycott and divestment activities. That is why we need Clause 3(7): it underlines the importance of Israel and the particular attacks on Israel.
I accept that the Occupied Territories raise much more difficult issues. In line with the international community, the UK recognises the settlements as illegal, but the practicalities are that this will not be settled conclusively until there is a two-state solution. This is something that cannot be imposed; it will have to be agreed, but that is unlikely to happen very soon. Anyone who has been to Israel or has been in touch with people in Israel will know that the attacks by Hamas on 7 October have left a traumatised Israeli people, for whom the possibility of discussing a two-state solution seems almost unthinkable at this point in time. That is not to deny that that is the right solution in the long term but simply to say that it does not appear to be an immediate, practical problem.
The reality on the ground is that, in the meantime, the unsatisfactory nature of the Occupied Territories is likely to continue. Even if we thought that boycotts and divestments in relation to the Occupied Territories would punish Israel, this ignores the simple fact that there is economic activity in those settlements. Anything that harms that will almost certainly harm Palestinians as much as it harms the people of Israel. We only have to look at what happened when SodaStream, an Israeli company, was forced to withdraw from its  activities in the occupied West Bank. The people who really lost out were the Palestinians who lost good, well-paid jobs when that facility had to close.
On our last day in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, pointed me to the FCDO guidance, which I duly went and read; he has read much of it into the record today. The important thing about that guidance is that, although it highlights the risks involved, it does not prohibit anyone in the UK from investing or dealing with those who are active in the Occupied Territories. I believe that this Bill reflects that pragmatic position—that the Occupied Territories are a fact of life—and that, until there is a two-state solution, trying to eliminate it from the Bill does not reflect the practical politics we are facing.

Lord Collins of Highbury: I did indeed read it into the record. Although it did not prohibit investment, it was saying, “Don’t do it. The risks are great. Be aware of those risks and seek legal opinion on them”. We are now debating a Bill that will say that you cannot make a decision based on the advice that the Government have issued.

Baroness Noakes: The noble Lord is right that the FCDO highlighted the risks and said that businesses involved should seek their own legal advice but it absolutely did not say, “and you mustn’t do it”. It is a fact of life that there will be economic activity in the Occupied Territories and that that may or may not involve businesses from Britain.
The only point I am trying to make is that the Occupied Territories are a fact of life at the moment; there is no easy solution and it is probably not a near-term solution. At the point when it is settled via a two-state solution, they will cease to be Occupied Territories, so that bit of the Bill will cease to have any relevance—but, for the moment, it has relevance. The other point I am trying to make is that anything that deliberately harms that is just as likely to harm Palestinians as it is Israeli citizens.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am puzzled by the speech that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has just made. First of all, I do not know why she feels that she can speak up on behalf of the Palestinians or how much time she has spent on the West Bank. I do not think that most of them would agree for one moment with anything she said about the proposal that we should stop, or that including Israel and the Occupied Territories in the Bill would damage the Palestinians. The Palestinians are concerned about their basic rights both to have their own state and to be able to live in what is now occupied by the Israeli Government and the Israeli Defence Forces in the completely different way that that occupation has created.
I am also very puzzled by what she said about anti-Semitism, which is in complete conflict with what was said by Margaret Hodge MP, who has thought about this very deeply—that the Bill is damaging from the point of view of creating anti-Semitism rather than alleviating it. The noble Baroness does not really respond to that point but has made points about what is happening in universities at the moment, which does not seem terribly relevant to this.
However, the point I really want to make is not to address the rather odd speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I want to ask the Minister: what legal advice have the Government taken about including the Occupied Territories in the Bill in the way that they are? I draw the Committee’s attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said: under international law, which we have accepted, this occupation is illegal and the settlements, which have grown and grown, are also illegal. So how can it be that the Government bring to Parliament a Bill that includes the Occupied Territories and does not differentiate them from the state of Israel? The counsel’s advice that I have seen says that to distinguish them is absolutely essential; it is pure sophistry to say that a distinction is made in the Bill and is an untenable view without any legal merit. I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment on that.
House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 7.24 pm.

UK Trade Performance
 - Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Wednesday 1 May.
“With permission, I would like to make a Statement on the UK’s trade performance.
When I am overseas, as Secretary of State for Business and Trade, other countries speak with nothing but admiration and respect for what we are achieving in Britain. As the chief executive officer of Nissan Global recently remarked:
‘It is surprising to hear people asking why they should choose the UK’—
because, in his words,
‘we have both great people and great talent here’.
Certainly, in the firms that I have visited up and down this country, I am proud to see our employers and exporters firing on all cylinders. Yet, when I return to Westminster, some people seem unaware of the progress that we have made as an independent trading nation. Today, I want to put that right.
The latest trade data, published by the Office for National Statistics and also by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, should give everyone in this House cause for celebration and renewed pride in our country. They confirmed that the strategy the public voted for on 23 June 2016 is delivering. Leaving the European Union was a vote of confidence in the project of the United Kingdom, and we are seeing results. Since that referendum, the UK economy has grown faster than that of Germany, Italy and Japan, and contrary to gloomy predictions, our manufacturing productivity has grown more than that of Germany, France, Italy and the USA.
According to the latest UN statistics, the UK, outside the EU, became the world’s fourth biggest exporter in 2022, overtaking Japan, the Netherlands and France. The value of UK exports was £862 billion in the 12 months to February 2024. That builds on progress we have made in growing our exports outside  the confines of the EU. Exports are now 2% above 2018 when adjusted for inflation. Services exports are at an all-time high. A summary of these figures, along with the most recent business and labour statistics, were published on GOV.UK in April. Together, they definitively disprove the claims of those who prophesied a catastrophic economic collapse when we left the EU to become a sovereign nation.
Today, we are selling not only more services to EU countries than ever before, but record amounts of services to the rest of the world, too. We are the largest net exporter of financial and insurance services in the world. Far from an exodus of businesses out of the UK, European firms have doubled down on their commitments to the UK. In 2020, Unilever chose to headquarter exclusively in London over Rotterdam. Since 2022, Cadbury has brought more chocolate production back to the UK from Germany. In the same year, Shell moved its headquarters out of the Netherlands and into the UK.
We are tearing down the barriers to trade. Since the start of 2022, we have resolved barriers all over the world, estimated to be worth more than £15 billion to UK businesses over a five-year period. In 2023, this was equivalent to removing around £1 million-worth of trade barriers every single hour. British pork farmers are benefiting from newly agreed access to the Mexican market, which is worth £80 million over the same period. Our work on bottle labelling for UK gin and whisky has driven up exports to Chile by tonnes. We have ended the US ban on British beef and lamb.
We are working to deliver a strategy on a situation that faces the whole world, not just our friends and neighbours in Europe. This is crucial if we are to lock Britain into the future of where global growth will be. In 2022, the EU took more than 60% of UK goods exports. In 2023, this was 47%, because UK goods exports to the EU remained broadly flat, while exports to non- EU countries rose by around 70% in real terms.
We are going further to seize the benefits of an independent trade policy. We have deals with 73 countries around the world, with more to come under this Government, plus the most comprehensive trade deal to which the EU has ever agreed. Later this year, we will join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of the world’s biggest trading blocs. This will mean that more than 99% of UK goods will be eligible for zero tariffs in some of the Asia Pacific’s most dynamic economies. British business is set to benefit.
As well as service exports, where Britain excels, our top goods sales were in cars, mechanical-powered generators, medicines, pharmaceutical products and aircraft components. We have one of the world’s largest manufacturing sectors. Productivity in our manufacturing industry has grown faster than in every other G7 nation since 2010. Hundreds of businesses in steel, chemicals and other sectors stand to benefit from the newly introduced British industry supercharger, which is bringing energy costs down for key industries. Our £4.5 billion advanced manufacturing plan is opening new markets and removing obstacles to growth while helping to crowd in new funding for plants and factories throughout the UK. Every penny the UK Government spend on manufacturing is matched fivefold by the growth creators  of the private sector. This pro-investment approach is working: the UK’s automotive sector attracted £3.7 billion -worth of greenfield foreign investment in 2022 alone.
The Labour party will remember Mr Alastair Campbell, who asserted during the referendum that if we leave the EU, Nissan will leave. Nissan is still here. The two new 100% electric models are set to be built at its Sunderland this year. More Minis are rolling off production lines in Oxfordshire today, thanks to a £600 million investment from BMW. These are firms that look for opportunities the world over and decide that the UK is the place to be. Listening to some of the remarks made in this House and elsewhere, people would think that our country was not worth investing in at all. Let us be clear: the British ingenuity and industry that made this country prosper in the past still exists today, and even if those on the Opposition Benches cannot see it, international investors certainly can.
The statistics published by my department show that the UK’s inward FDI stock has reached more than £2 trillion. Our FDI stock is the highest in Europe—more than Germany, France and Italy combined. The most recent OECD data show that our employment rate is higher than that of the US, France and Italy.
The regulatory freedoms that we gained by leaving the EU have allowed our smarter regulation programme to cut the red tape that has been holding them back. We have already reformed the working time directive reporting requirements, saving businesses up to £1 billion per year. We recently announced that we will raise the thresholds that determine company size, reducing burdens on smaller businesses, and remove low-value and overlapping reporting requirements.
Those changes will make reporting simpler and deliver savings of around £150 million per year to UK companies, with small and medium-sized companies benefiting by around £145 million. It is no surprise that the most recent NatWest SME business activity index shows that output is increasing strongly, driven by renewed manufacturing sector expansion, and companies’ activity expectations remain upbeat. These things do not happen by accident, and I hope that honourable Members on both sides of the House will welcome those figures.
I have no doubt that this Statement will disappoint some people, as it does not align with the story that they want to tell of a nation riven by injustice and economic stagnation, clinging to Europe for any hope for the future. That is not to say that everything is perfect —of course there is still more to do—but we are not alone in our problems. Ministers in other countries are quick to remind me about supply-chain issues affecting everything from getting car components to stocking supermarket shelves. They tell me about how they are coping with problems in the jobs market, as societies from Germany to Japan get older.
Only when I am back in the UK am I told that all these issues are down to Brexit. Far from it. Our plans are working, and Britain is thriving as an independent sovereign home of free enterprise and free trade. That is what the recent figures published by my department, by the ONS, and by the UN tell me. It is what our businesses, exporters, employers and investors all tell me, and I hope that honourable Members present can see it too. I commend this Statement to the House.”

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride: My Lords, the Secretary of State’s facts and figures Statement to the Commons last week said nothing new. It was as if one of her advisers had opened up ChatGPT and asked it to cherry-pick statistics and make reference to the Brexit trade bonus, as if that were anything other than a slogan without substance. In some ways, I am not sure where to start. It was, after all, not aimed at us in Parliament or the wider international trade community; rather, it was aimed internally, at the Conservative Party, and the jostling for post-election leadership positions.
Let us take a look at the detail—a proper look at the statistics that lie beneath the facts and figures Statement. Figures released earlier this year by the Office for National Statistics showed that the volume of goods, imports and exports, last year had fallen by 7.4% since 2018—the single largest five-year decline since comparable records began in 1997. In the words of the OBR:
“Growth in UK goods trade … has fallen well behind the rest of the G7”.
While the rest of the G7 saw an average increase of 5% from 2019 to 2023, in the UK we saw a 10% decrease.
I want to share her optimism but I fail to see the success story that the Secretary of State in the other place assures us of. Ed Conway, the economist and data editor at Sky News, pointed out that the document the Secretary of State referred to in her speech fails to adjust for inflation, so in real terms goods exports remain well below the pre-Brexit levels. British businesses, manufacturers and farmers need consistency and leadership, but all this Government have been consistent about is failing British producers and exporters.
As my honourable friend Gareth Thomas MP pointed out when this was debated in the other place last week, the Government’s own figures show that FDI—foreign direct investment—is down by a third since 2016-17. Under the previous Labour Government, the UK accounted for an average 8% of the world’s FDI, but since the Conservatives entered government in 2010 they have managed to halve that to only 4% of world foreign direct investment. Business investment is now lower in the UK than in any other G7 country, and the UK ranks among the lowest in the OECD for investment as a share of GDP. Does the Minister recognise this decline since 2010? If so, what plan does he have to bring FDI up to the levels last seen under the previous Labour Government?
I also found it bizarre that the Secretary of State chose to mention accession to the CPTPP. In our debates and discussions on the CPTPP, we in this House seemed to conclude that the impact on the UK was minimally positive at best. If that is the most we can hope for from this Government, we really are in need of a new one.
In her speech, the Secretary of State made no mention of the Government’s MoU—memorandums of understanding—programme with individual US states. Do the Government now consider them to be a success—I am sure that the Minister will want to point to some of the US individual state MoUs and outline their wins—or have they accepted that they are not  substantive Brexit wins but rather, in the words of the FT’s senior trade writer, Alan Beattie, “pointless pieces of paper”?
In conclusion, I have a number of questions for the Minister. Business investment is lower in the UK than in any other country in the G7, and the UK is among the worst performers in the OECD38 for investment as a share of GDP. What steps do His Majesty’s Government intend to take to increase business investment in the UK?
UK exports have grown at a slower rate than in every other G7 country except Japan, far behind Canada, Germany and the US. Many UK businesses want to know what steps the Government will take to support them to export their goods and services. Given that this House has repeatedly been promised an amazing trade deal with India, usually by Diwali—that is, last Diwali—will the Minister update your Lordships’ House on the state of the free trade agreement negotiations with India?
As the devastating news of south Wales continues to come, we have heard next to nothing from the Government on the damage that has been allowed to be inflicted on the British steel industry. Does the Minister still think that spending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to make thousands of people redundant and leave us as the first developed country with no primary steel-making capacity is, in the words of his Secretary of State, “a great deal”?
I agree with the words of the Nissan CEO, referred to by the Secretary of State in the Statement, that the UK has
“both great people and great talent here”.
It is a shame that both are being greatly let down by this Government.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: My Lords, as this month we are likely to see the UK economy moving from recession to stagnation, I can imagine that there were briefings in the department a few weeks ago to show some of the trade figures. There will probably be a collective view from Ministers, saying, “We don’t like those facts and figures; bring us some different ones”, so I am grateful for the alternative facts and figures of the state of British trade to be presented to Parliament.
Unfortunately, as I read the Statement, it had a degree of pathos. It is quite sad that Ministers keep banging on about Brexit, and have not got over some of the grievances they had before and immediately after the referendum. It is rather a pathetic sight to see them making a Statement such as this, with very few people listening.
Many people in some of the key sectors of our economy are looking for action, not rhetoric and Parliamentary Statements. Many of our exporting partners in our key markets are looking for reduced barriers and burdens. I shall come to that in a moment. Primarily our businesses are looking for reduced costs, less bureaucracy and the Government knuckling down to ensure that what has been claimed to be “the world’s best border” actually functions as just a decent one, not one with its processes 20 miles from Dover for likely checks, for whose introduction there has been delay upon delay upon delay.
Any good news about British trade is good news, and I welcome it. I seek the best for our exporting businesses. However, that will not come about through rhetorical Statements such as this. For example, we are told that the UK economy has grown faster than those of Germany, Italy and Japan—without the obvious context that we fell the sharpest and the deepest after Brexit and as a result of Covid. Any recovery at all over that timeframe would be faster. The question is not the speed, but the totality of whether our economy is likely, at the end of this decade, to be bigger than it was before the referendum, or would have been if there had not been a referendum. Every indicator, including the Government admitting this to the OBR, says that on a compound basis, after 4% a year, our economy will be considerably smaller. To say that is not to do down our country; that is just, as the Government might put it, a fact.
The Government have issued a Statement. It would have been useful to have some footnotes with links to the documents. I commend the officials for scouring the UN and UNCTAD, as well as our official government statistics. As the noble Lord said, they have done a grand job of cherry-picking. The UNCTAD trade briefing for the UK shows, for example—this is one indicator—that since 2015 exports are up from £467 billion to £533 billion. That is good, and the Government refer to an increase in exports. What they do not say, however, is that UK imports have gone up much more, from £630 billion to more than £823 billion. The United Kingdom trade deficit in goods has gone up—and not only gone up, but doubled as a percentage of GDP. UNCTAD says that in 2015 it was 1.59% of GDP, whereas in 2022 it was 3.01% of GDP.
The Minister might say that talking about trade deficits is old fashioned, and that our economy is a service-sector economy. However, the trade deficit is very important when we analyse who that deficit is with. It is primarily with China. Yes, that is an indication of the growth in the economy of Asia, but the UK now has the biggest trade deficit with a single country ever in our history. The deficit with China is more than £40 billion. The Minister heard me refer to that.
That puts all the individual references, such as to access to the Mexican market, of £18 million, in perspective. Access to the Mexican market of £18 million is good; I welcome that. But I am more concerned about the fact that the UK has not done a resilience analysis of our key sectors, with an enormous trade deficit of £40 billion—that is £40,000 million—with China. In the context of President Xi visiting Europe, but also Hungary and Serbia, UK trade in the world is now a geopolitical consideration.
The Government have indicated that, as the Statement says:
“We are tearing down the barriers to trade”.
The Minister will probably not be surprised to hear that I disagree with him, and I will not be surprised that he will disagree with me, so we might want to settle with regard to the independent Regulatory Policy Committee, which advises Ministers on this very issue, and its analysis since the period referred to in the Government’s Statement. We can take one example from the 2017-19 Parliament, and I quote directly from the committee. It said:
“For the 2017-2019 Parliament, the relevant government set a … target of a £9 billion reduction in direct costs over the length of the Parliament, however thefinal positionwas anincreasein costs of £7.8 billion. Similarly, the government has set a holding target of £0 for the current Parliament”—
zero was the holding target for the Parliament we are in—
“butin the first yearof the Parliament, there was anincreaseof £5.7 billion (excluding the very significant impacts of temporary COVID-related measures)”.
This Government have presided over the biggest single increase in business burdens—bigger than any of their predecessors—and the fact that some have been removed, without any reference to the totality of the sum of the 500 referenced in the Statement, is pointless to put in.
My final point concerns what Governments can do to reduce burdens. My noble friends Lord Fox and Lady Randerson have raised repeatedly the increased costs now per British business, of £145 per consignment. This is, I remind the House, “the world’s best border”, and it is a typical cost per business of £100,000 since the new measures have been put in place—but it is also about friction of trade, when it comes to safety and security certificates, customs declarations, evidence of origins of goods, VAT requirements, health certificates and chemical certificates. These are all barriers. I hope the Minister can give an indication now of what the estimated net reduction in British business for trade will be. We have seen that the increase has been £100,000; what is the trajectory down? As I started, British businesses are not looking for boosterism, they are looking for bureaucracy and costs to be reduced and, unfortunately, nothing in this Statement would suggest that they are.

Lord Offord of Garvel: I thank noble Lords for their response to the Secretary of State’s Statement in the other place. I am very happy to take the points raised, but I must say that I feel we are living in a slightly parallel universe. Let me try to persuade noble Lords that we are in a very privileged position here in the UK. We are the sixth-largest economy in the world and the fourth largest in the G7. We have just moved to being the fourth-largest exporter in the world, after the US, China and Germany. We are the second-largest exporter of services in the world and we have just moved to be the seventh-largest manufacturer in the world.
Our economy is 80% services and 20% goods. That is where our people work: 80% of our employment is in services; 80% of our exports are in services; 20% of our workers work in manufactured goods, yet 45% of our exports are in manufactured goods. What does that tell you? Our goods are very good. They go around the world and people want to buy British goods. Our manufacturing sector has never been in better health. Everywhere I go, every country I visit, they want to buy British goods. There is a clear understanding now about services, so 55% of our exports are in services and the direction of travel will be that this country will be two-thirds services and one-third goods. What is great about services? We do not need to transport them; they can move digitally.  They are usually in sectors that pay higher wages and that is why the workforce in the UK is now skilling up into services and getting higher wages.
Take the OECD numbers that were mentioned and let us just remind ourselves what the OECD said in its 2016 report about Europe, indicating that when we joined what was then the Common Market, Europe accounted for one-third of global trade. In 2019, when we left, it was 16% of global trade and by 2050 it will be 9% of global trade. Therefore, putting aside geography and culture, the British people made a very savvy business decision to tilt to where the trade is. The trade is in the Indo-Pacific. We have just joined this thing called the CPTPP, the trans-Pacific partnership. Last time I looked at the map, the UK was not anywhere near the Pacific Ocean. We could not have got into that deal when we were in the EU: that is 15% of GDP and 40% of the world’s middle-class consumers. It feels like a good place to be.
The OECD report looking forward to 2050 says that the three mega economies will, obviously, be the US, China and India. It sounds as if the CPTPP will be a very interesting fourth bloc to be part of, and we are part of it. Coming out of Brexit, we must remember that that was actually a trade deal. We did a tariff-free trade deal with the EU 27 and now, 41% of our exports go to the EU 27. If we include the Europe 34, it is 49% of our exports. It is still our biggest market, with which we are trading very strongly across both goods and services. The US is 20% of our pie chart, while 30% is the rest of the world, and that is where the growth is. We are tilting to where the growth is, while still being able to trade very successfully with Europe.
Looking at the numbers themselves, our exports are worth £862 billion today. We now have numbers we can actually look at, from 2018 to the end of 2023, so that takes in the most difficult five years we have had in the economy in the post-war era. A number of disruptions happened in that period. We had Brexit, Covid, the war in Ukraine, a massive spike in energy prices, a massive spike in inflation, and massive disruption to supply chains, probably the biggest we have seen since the Second World War.
Let us look into the numbers on an inflation-adjusted basis. From 2018 to 2023 our exports were up 26%, but if we take out inflation, they were up 2%. Basically, that means that we are now just ahead of where we were before this massive five-year disruption happened. Our manufactured goods are down 13%, inflation-adjusted, and our services are up 15%. Thank goodness we are a service economy and that we are able to rely on our services. Manufactured goods are down the world over.
The most interesting stat in the whole pack looks at manufactured goods to the EU 27 versus manufactured goods to the rest of the world. Manufactured goods to the EU 27 in this five-year period were down 13%, inflation-adjusted, and manufactured goods to the rest of the world in the same period were down 13%. There is no difference. There is no difference between our trading of manufactured goods to the EU 27 and to the rest of world. However, our services are up 8% to the EU and up 19% to the non-EU—the rest of the world. We have a pie chart of £860 billion, and  24% of that is manufactured goods to the EU 27. That is the only bit that the Financial Times and the BBC will report on. I am here to tell you that the other 76% is going—we have used the word in this Chamber before—gangbusters, so that must mean that the Government are doing something right to drive the economic agenda forward. Therefore, I can clearly refute the idea that we are in a difficult place. We are actually undergoing a massive recovery post Brexit and post Covid.
We have talked about the trade deals. On our EU exit, we immediately had 65 trade deals that we rolled over from the EU. We have now got that up to 73. What is interesting about the new deals? They are the most progressive in the world. Let us take the Australian trade deal. The EU did not really bother with services; it was fixated on manufactured goods. Now, the Australian trade deal has chapters on services, digital, innovation and digital trade. We have just passed the Electronic Trade Documents Act; we can now send goods around the world without paperwork. We have just sent a bunch of valves from Burnley to Singapore without any paperwork. We are bringing in a single trade window in 2025; instead of filling out 28 forms, you fill one out once and it cascades down through the system. We are putting in place a digital border, which will be the most progressive in the world. It will give us the value of £3 billion over the next five years. Yes, there will be some costs along the way, and yes, we need our borders to be protected, particularly from an SPS point of view. Our farmers think it is an unfair playing field right now and that imports versus exports in agri is not a level playing field. We are putting that in place, and in a very light-touch, careful manner.
Wherever I look in my portfolio, I see good news. If we are talking about world trade, we have these 73 trade deals; that covers 60% of world trade. Our target was 80% of world trade; well, the missing 20% is the USA, which is not doing trade deals with anybody right now, so it is not personal. We are trading very well with the US right now; in fact, our exports to the USA are at record amounts, both services and goods, and it may well be that that is good to continue as is.
Eight MoUs were signed with eight states. If you talk to Andy Burnham, recently re-elected as a Labour mayor, about the MoU with North Carolina and what the northern powerhouse is doing direct with North Carolina, he loves it; he is not talking it down, and he is not complaining about there not being an FTA with the USA. Right now, you can see that what they want in Manchester is a direct link to North Carolina based on mutual recognition of qualifications; it is to do with digital and the direct links he can make between his northern powerhouse and North Carolina. What we are hearing back is, “What a clever thing the UK has done”; we are dealing with individual states rather than getting bogged down in Washington.
If we take that as the missing 20%, we effectively have free trade with 80% of the world’s trade. We are in a very strong position when it comes to business investment; we do not need to go through all the numbers. We know that Alastair Campbell was on record saying that, following Brexit, Nissan will leave. What has it done? It has invested all the more—another  £4 billion in its plant in the north-east. Some £2 billion of government investment has been matched by £24 billion from the private sector. Is that not the point of government? The Government are a pump-primer. The Government do not do business; the Government should not be doing business. The Government should be an enabler and facilitator for the private sector to do business. So, £2 billion of pump-priming results in £24 billion of investment; that is a pretty good deal.
India is clearly a big market. Right now, it is only 2% of our exports, but it will be a very big market for us to deal with. We have done 95% of that deal. Guess what? In any negotiation, the last 5% is the most difficult. Right now, India has an election on, so that has stalled at the moment—stalled is the wrong word, so please do not quote me on that; it is awaiting them to come out of purdah. But we have closed 13 rounds and 26 chapters on a whole range of issues with India, which does not really do free trade. What we are doing with India is groundbreaking.
When it comes to steel, we have net zero targets. We all agree on net zero targets, do we not? We must move to the new way of creating steel—electric arc furnaces. We must remind ourselves that we do not have iron ore here in the UK, so in Port Talbot 8,000 jobs are at risk. We have done a deal to save 5,000 and put in place a £500 million package for the other 3,000. I come from Clydeside, where we shut down the shipyards, and we did not have that deal; there was no furlough scheme. Here, a deal is being done with government to work on an industry going through transition—meeting our net zero targets, moving to electric arc furnaces, and saying that we cannot save every job, but we will invest in 5,000 of the 8,000 and work out a plan to help with the 3,000 redundancies. That is a pretty good deal.
I think I have covered most of the points. At the end of the day, the UK economy is the fourth largest in the G7. Our numbers are good, and our forecasts for growth are good. In November 2022, the OBR expected a year-long recession and GDP to fall; in fact, the economy grew in 2023 and inflation has more than halved and is falling fast. That is good for business. We should remind ourselves that, at the end of the day, GDP is a meaningless measure, except for economists. You cannot eat your GDP; GDP is an output. I have yet to meet a business that say when they get up in the morning that they are going to increase their GDP today. I have never met a household that says, “How is your GDP doing today, in terms of your budget?”
We should deal with the fact that, in 2023, people’s real incomes were £1,200 higher than the OBR expected in its March forecast. Real household disposable income per capita is higher today than it was in 2019, when we came out of the EU. In terms of our workforce, 33 million people in our population of 66 million work and produce a tax revenue of over £1 trillion. By increasing the national minimum wage and upskilling our workforce, the number of workers in our economy who are on what was called low hourly pay is now 8.9%. In 2010, that was 21%. Benefits in 2010 were the largest source of income for the poorest working-age households, whereas under the Conservatives their wages are now the highest contribution. Is that not what matters?
What matters is how we put food on the table. We are upskilling our economy. We are a service, modern, post-industrial economy. Where our manufacturing is world-class, it has been protected by this Government and invested in by the private sector. In the meantime, our service economy is going gangbusters, our workers are being upskilled and our SMEs are exporting and becoming exemplars in their local communities. Our economy is doing very well and I commend the Secretary of State’s Statement to the House .

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his very robust reply. The main attack from the opposition spokesman last Wednesday was to criticise the Secretary of State because the figures she quoted for exports—£862 billion—were not adjusted to inflation. That is, they were not volume figures but value figures. I put it to my noble friend that that point is a completely false one. It is entirely appropriate to quote value figures rather than volume figures for an economy that is overwhelmingly services, because it is very difficult to measure services and services exports in terms of volume.
Secondly, it is appropriate to measure exports in terms of value because that is what matters to the person who is employed and getting paid. They get paid in pounds, shillings and pence, so measuring them in value terms is perfectly legitimate. Thirdly, everybody laughs as though it were a superficial matter, but this has been disputed. The opposition spokesman was quoting Mr Conway, whose figures have been attacked publicly in the press and by many other commentators. In any case, is his argument very profound, given that the Secretary of State gave figures for exports by volume as well? She gave both—so I do not see how she can be accused of being misleading in any way.
Does my noble friend agree that it is profoundly depressing that, near to an election, hoping to form the next Government and believing that they will, all they can do is talk the economy down? They are determined that everything should be bad news. This is not the proper basis on which a party serious about being in government should be talking about our economy.
I have one question for my noble friend about the motor vehicle industry. I very much applauded the decision to delay the date for battery vehicles being compulsory, but could the Government go further and accord with the request by Stellantis that they should not fine companies that produce good petrol cars before people are ready to buy electric cars? As he will know, there is a lot of sensitivity in the motor industry about this position and quite a lot of motor companies have changed their view, so I would be very grateful if he could comment on that.

Lord Offord of Garvel: I thank my noble friend for that contribution on a subject that he knows well. I will come to his specific question on auto in a moment. I will say that we are in a strong position here, but of course there is more that we can do. One of the focuses of DBT and my portfolio is to try to increase the number of companies that export. At the moment,  we have 300,000 companies exporting. My personal ambition is to try to get that up to 500,000, which would be 20% of the 2.5 million registered companies.
The reason why we want these companies to be exporting is that we discover that they share some very interesting characteristics. First, they are well managed; they have ambitious management teams and are quite often owner managed. Secondly, if they are selling goods and services around the world, it is because they are world class and will get high margins for those products and services, so they will be more profitable. And here is the silver bullet—they pay higher wages. If 70% of them are based outside London and the south-east, that is real levelling up. So of course there is more that we can do, but there is a strong recovery going on in our economy right now.
On the specific issue of automotive, obviously we have had a discussion with Stellantis and have talked about Nissan et cetera. Sometimes these discussions are described as U-turns, but I see them as part of a practical journey to net zero. We have to move in a practical way and take the public with us. Right now, we have a direction of travel but we have to be flexible, as we have been with heat pumps and indeed cars, to make sure that we take the public with us. The market itself has not yet landed and has to decide exactly how this will be fulfilled.
I do not see this as in any way reneging on our net-zero commitments. Right now, 75% of our economy is powered by petrochemicals and 25% by renewables. The 2050 target is to flip that on its head and make it 25% hydrocarbons, which would be green and clean hydrocarbons, and 75% renewables. How we get there is to be done over a generation. We have a direction of travel, but we will be flexible about it as we go, as we already demonstrated with heat pumps and cars. I am very clear that we will get there and in a way that continues to make sure that our industries are profitable and that our workers are well paid.

Viscount Waverley: My Lords, putting fresh produce on the table might become a challenge, as a result of the customs controls that took effect from 30 April. The Minister referred to the Electronic Trade Documents Act, but that needs a boost, with HMRC accepting that we are now potentially in a paperless environment. Yet I have heard that, in the Port of Dover, although the Act is in place, staff are still asking for paper to support the process—so work clearly needs to be done.
Trade matters. It is the engine room of the economy. The Statement referred to
“exporters firing on all cylinders”,
and went on to say that
“some people seem unaware of the progress that we have made as an independent trading nation”.
Does the Minister accept that much more could be done? I have in my sights the UK’s membership organisations. Does the Minister recognise the role of trade in fostering co-operation and development? Will he convene a meeting of individual chambers of commerce and trade associations, and listen to what they have to say?
Support is required, sharing challenges and solutions to deepen economic co-operation in the UK’s national interest, including making themselves available to engage  with opposite numbers globally and away from a rather patchy record—as identified, for example, by the Turkish manufacturers association wishing to sit with Make UK to discuss mutual co-operation in both countries’ best interests. We are just about to start an FTA, but we have to have the trade associations that represent these organisations engaging—they do not even answer the phone.

Lord Offord of Garvel: I thank the noble Lord for those comments. On the border target operating model and the new checks coming in, as part of Brexit, which the UK voted for, we need to protect our borders in all respects. As we have said before, we need border checks, especially when it comes to SPS. There will be costs to bear, but they will be outweighed by the benefits and the farming community has been very vocal in support of that measure. Let us remind ourselves of the costs if things go wrong: foot and mouth cost us £13 billion. So it is obvious that we need to do this and do it in a light-touch manner.
On stakeholder associations, I absolutely agree. I have regular dialogue with all the names given. We are in a bit of a transition with these organisations after having 50 years of being very focused on Europe. There is now a need for us to raise our sights, and there is a need for those organisations to go more global—no question about it. I am staggered as I go to our embassies and commissions around the world to find the strength in depth that we have in terms of trade teams in-country. We need to get them more joined up with stakeholder organisations. I will be happy to take that initiative forward in my portfolio.

Earl of Effingham: My Lords, the Statement refers to our exporters “firing on all cylinders”, but according to the CBI and the British Exporters Association, less than 10% of UK businesses export. The Statement also refers to Unilever and Shell choosing London as their corporate headquarters, but Unilever is currently debating whether to list its ice cream business in London or Amsterdam, and Shell has made press comments about having a location that clearly seems to be undervalued, prompting concern that the company may move its listing to the US in future. My noble friend has already answered the question about how the Government will help more of our firms to export, but what will the Government do to assist and maintain UK stock market listings, not just in the FTSE 100 but, equally importantly, in the small cap index?

Lord Offord of Garvel: When it comes to stock market listings and the operation of stock markets, that is, by definition, capitalism in the private sector, and the Government should not get involved in that particular exchange. However, the previous lord mayor led a very interesting initiative which identified that our pension funds are not investing enough in UK equities, so there is now an interesting scheme going on whereby we can see whether we can get 5% of UK pension funds invested in UK equities, which I think is a very worthwhile initiative.
When it comes to headquarters, et cetera, a number of studies have been put out recently by PwC, EY and Boston Consulting Group which have done surveys  with CEOs who indicate that they still believe that the UK is one of the best places to locate their head office in Europe. Therefore, we do not see any diminution in that. Foreign direct investment into the UK now is greater than into France, Germany and Italy combined. The market, the money, talks. The money is coming in—my noble friend Lord Johnson is doing a sterling job on that. We have a strong, good economy. Foreign investment is coming in. There is dislocation of stock markets, but initiatives are being taken to alleviate that concern.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister agrees with the Green Party about GDP growth being an extremely inaccurate measure of progress in a society. The question I want to ask is specifically about the situation of small and medium-sized enterprises exporting to the EU. Importers are having many difficulties. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, referred to florists, and horticulturists are reaching out to me regularly. On exporters, British Chambers of Commerce figures for the fourth quarter of 2023 show that 50% of SMEs have had no change in overseas sales while 24% have seen a decrease and that exports from SMEs to the EU are consistently underperforming domestic sales. The head of trade policy at the BCC has said
“firms continue to express huge frustration with the complexity and cost involved”,
referring to exporting to the EU. Are the Government going to do more to help in what is clearly a deeply damaging situation for SMEs?

Lord Offord of Garvel: I just wish the noble Baroness had been at breakfast this morning at No. 10 Downing Street, where my noble friend Lord Petitgas and I hosted 16 SMEs which are exporters to Europe and elsewhere. They reported on how their businesses are trading up and that they now have the opportunity to trade around the world beyond Europe. I have been through the numbers; they do not lie. The numbers say that in terms of our manufacturing there has been no difference between Europe and the rest of the world. There are of course individual circumstances and individual companies where there have been ups and downs. That is business, but, overall, we are very clear that our SMEs have a great appetite to export. We need to get more of them exporting—as I said, 300,000 out of 2.5 million VAT-registered companies do so; I personally feel that we should push that up to half a million. We can do that, especially with the new digital industries coming through. Certainly, I would be very happy to introduce the noble Baroness to a number of the export champions today. Some of them are actually bringing manufacturing back—onshoring manufacturing —to the UK following Brexit. That is a very pleasing development.

Lord Bellingham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his optimistic and dynamic Statement about the economy and these trade figures. Can he confirm again that the UK’s exports are at an all-time high? The UK is the largest net exporter of financial and insurance services in the world. Those are surely staggering figures, and all of us ought to make more of them.
Can I ask the Minister to refer again to the new border checks that will be put on animal and plant products, as raised by the Lib Dem spokesman a moment ago? A number of trade associations estimate that these new checks will cost in the region of £2 billion per year. I think we all agree that there needs to be no let-up in the maintenance of standards and that we need consistency across Europe, particularly post-Brexit —farmers and the rural community will demand nothing less. However, is there not an argument for looking at more of a light-touch regime and relying on spot checks based on intelligence-led—perhaps communications intelligence-led—policing of individual consignments rather than imposing this very large potential blanket burden?

Lord Offord of Garvel: That is exactly the regime being implemented. We might even consider that some of the delays in implementing the regime are precisely for that reason—to make sure that it is light touch and not a blanket position.
We have a very interesting future on the border, largely because of the Northern Ireland situation. We had to solve the problem of how to make a meaningful trade border without recreating a hard border. The only way to do that is digital and through self-certification and pre-checking. Hence, we have ended up with the green lane and red lane and the trusted trader system—which the rest of the world is now going to adopt—where you pre-certify your goods and check them before they go through the border. The CEO of the Channel Tunnel recently said that trade is moving through the tunnel faster than when we were in the EU, because it is all on a QR code on the phone that is pre-checked and pre-certified. You certify where it is going to and what goods need to be checked. The checking being done is therefore on a confirmatory basis—an exceptional basis—and not on a blanket basis. If we include the Electronic Trade Documents Act and the single trade window, the direction of travel in the next five years will be to collapse trade very quickly into, in effect, a digital passport, which will speed things up considerably.
Yes, there will be costs in putting in place a border, but I can see you and raise you on the benefits that will come from a digital border.

Lord Popat: My Lords, I welcome the figures that my noble friend the Minister gave us, but our major problem is a trade deficit. This is not something new; it has been the case for the last four decades. In other words, we do not have enough exports to pay for imports. Last year, the deficit was £862 billion. What more can we do to support UK PLC—especially SMEs—to export more? The trade envoy programme supports UK PLC to export more—I am one of the trade envoys, by the way. Is there any plan to enhance this programme and increase the number of trade envoys to support UK PLC to export more?

Lord Offord of Garvel: I thank my noble friend, and I am delighted that he is a trade envoy. It has been a very worthwhile initiative. All the embassies and high commissions I go to are delighted with how that is working. Of course, we can do more. Companies  themselves feel that they are getting a lot of support and have a direct line to government through the trade envoys.
The balance of trade is something that economists love to talk about. At the end of the day, do not forget that we import to export. The modern British economy is not so much a primary manufacturer as a designer, assembler and manufacturer of added value to goods. For example, with a number of our pharmaceuticals, 80% of the input is imported. Therefore, that balance of trade belies the fact that we enhance, improve and sell back out what we are taking in.
The direction of travel is to increase our exports and, ultimately, that is what our free trade agreements will do. We talk to our companies about the CPTPP and the fact that you can go to Mexico, Canada, Peru, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam, Australia, Japan and New Zealand—then add all the others that want to come in. They now have new markets to go to.
One of the SMEs at breakfast this morning was a manufacturer of women’s sporting apparel. When it was doing its business plan, it was selling only to Europe and could not sell to Australia. Now, since we have done the Australian free trade agreement and taken the tariffs off, margins have improved by 12% to 14%. We passed the Electronic Trade Documents Act, which now means it can get its goods made in the UK into Australia within 48 hours. That business is booming on the back of the Australia free trade agreement. That is the opportunity we have now to boost exports across our economy.

Lord Davies of Brixton: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied with this country’s current position in terms of its balance of payments? Those of us with longer memories will recall times when Governments fell over the issue of balance of payments, but it appears to be a metric that is not given enough attention now. I think the current figures show a substantial deficit, in the billions. Is the Minister satisfied with that?

Lord Offord of Garvel: I think that takes us into a whole technical area. We will come back to that another time, thank you very much.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
 - Committee (3rd Day) (Continued)

Clause 3: Exceptions
  

Debate on Amendment 20 resumed.

Lord Leigh of Hurley: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Oates, and others want to remove reference to Israel. The question has been raised as to why one country should be singled out. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, drew attention to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. He did not mention the noble Lord’s other  remarks—that part of his deal to recognise Palestine as a state would be that Hamas was expelled and, of course, the release of all hostages, which is an integral part of the jigsaw.
Others have commented that the Bill, which I support, does nothing about anti-Semitism. That is a minority view within the Jewish community. Jews for Justice for Palestinians, which was referenced, has an extremely small minority view. The vast majority of the Jewish population in the UK is represented by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council, on which I serve as vice-president. They are both in favour of such a Bill. They would not be in favour of this Bill if they had any worries that it would lead to an increase in anti-Semitism.
Likewise, with reference to the impact on the West Bank, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was asked whether she goes to the West Bank much. I have been to the West Bank. I chair a charity called the Jerusalem Foundation. One of the projects we are doing is building a very large sports centre in east Jerusalem. It includes a swimming pool, and it will be run by the locals for the benefit of the local community. It would be a great shame if this sports centre could not be built by a British contractor in whole or part because of fear of sanctions and thus its inability to win local council contracts.
It is obvious why Israel has to be protected by this Bill: precisely because it is the one country singled out for unparalleled abuse, criticism, misinformation and, sadly, hate. Which other country has people on the streets of the UK calling for its complete destruction? A country controlled by autocrats, or denying the rights of women, gays, minorities or religious groups? No. In fact, it is only one country—the one that achieves the reverse of all that.
This pattern has happened since Israel’s creation, facilitated in 1948 by a body—the United Nations—that has subsequently done all it can to demonise it. So why should special protection be given to Israel as Clause 3(7) suggests? I can answer that if noble Lords can explain to me why, since 2003, the UN has issued 232 resolutions in respect of Israel. Some 40% of all resolutions issued by the UN in that period have been on Israel, six times that of the second-placed country, Sudan. In 2023 alone, the UN General Assembly brought 15 resolutions against Israel and only seven on the multitude of conflicts around the world. Furthermore, the UN Human Rights Council has a dedicated, permanent line item—item 7—on Israel, specifically and alone. It has not done this with any other member state.
I argue that special prejudice and discrimination deserve special protection. The UN has had nine meetings of the Security Council to discuss the situation in Gaza, but not one about the hostages. If such a once-distinguished—now, sadly, widely regarded as discredited—organisation can show such bias against Israel, and only Israel, we need to take steps to ensure that this cancer of thought does not spread to UK institutions. Many agitators have run out of causes to address with their ire and prejudice, so their polemics are focused on a country they believe they can, by means fair or foul, destroy by a series of lies and hate- filled allegations.
I take the noble Lord, Lord Collins, at his word and believe him to be keen to find a way to avoid BDS. He is an honourable person and he says what he means. So I am disappointed that those on the Labour Front Bench support this amendment. I thought that they, and indeed all noble Lords, would understand that stopping BDS is right, fair and just, as are steps to protect the State of Israel from abuse by organisations themselves funded by the fair-minded British taxpayer.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, I rise to offer Green support for Amendment 20 while stressing our continued opposition to the entire Bill. The argument for Amendment 20—that Clause 3(7) not be in the Bill—has already been powerfully made, but I will make three brief points. The first is about international law. This point has been powerfully made by many noble Lords already, and you do not have to listen to me; you can listen to Alicia Kearns MP, chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, who pointed out that, as the Bill is written, it constitutes a departure from British foreign policy that
“puts the UK in breach of our commitments under UN Security Council resolution 2334
My second point picks up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Oates. We have seen changes, over the months, in the British Government’s rhetoric at least, if not in their policy, when it comes to arms sales to the Israeli state, which will become only more legally, diplomatically and politically pressing. But we are not here talking about policy. We are talking about law: something on the statute book that remains until the law is changed. The convention, of course, is that no Parliament binds its successors, but we know how time-consuming and energy-consuming it is to change past errors as circumstances change.
The third point I want to make is one that no one else has made, but I am afraid that I have to, which is to refer to what is happening as we speak. Hundreds of thousands of people are in desperate fear with nowhere left to run, nowhere to seek safety. The Israeli state has seized the Rafah border crossing. A couple of figures haunt me. One of them is, of course, the death toll, which is approaching 35,000 in Gaza, but another figure I saw last week is that 5% of people in Gaza have been killed or injured. That is a deeply shocking figure.
There are many horrors around the world. We hear little enough in your Lordships’ House and elsewhere about Sudan and South Sudan. As Greens, we are always seeking support to focus on the massive human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. I also have to put the situation of the people of Afghanistan, particularly its women, into this list. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred with displeasure to what is happening now in our universities and those around the world, where mostly young people are expressing their horror at what is being done to an occupied people, of whom 5% have been killed or injured. I believe those young people should have the right to do that. We will come shortly to the issue of universities.
I must stress that the horror and anger must not be directed at the wrong targets but we are seeing people expressing their humanity and their care for others, particularly the most vulnerable. To suppress that is indefensible in general, but to pick on an area where there is so much suffering at this moment makes Clause 3(7) particularly indefensible.

Baroness Janke: My Lords, I should like to add a few points. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, says, many of them have been made by others but the confusion in this Bill that is causing us a great deal of difficulty is of understanding its benefits. We have heard that the Bill singles out protection for Israel in perpetuity and conflates Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights, despite the fact that these are recognised as distinct by UK foreign policy. Primary legislation would be needed if Israel were to be removed from being protected by UK legislation. Also, the Occupied Territories are illegally occupied, as we have already said. How can it be justified and embedded in UK law that such protection in perpetuity for illegal settlements should be given by our own country?
There is more confusion, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, about Foreign Office guidance. What the advice said, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was:
“There are … clear risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements, and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements”
and other activities
“in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks”.
Presumably, trustees and advisers of pension funds considering such advice may need to take action and not procure or invest in these areas; they would be contravening the provisions of the Bill.
We also know that the ICJ has warned that Israel may be committing genocide and is currently investigating a case brought by South Africa to that effect. Should that be found to be the case, public bodies would be prevented from taking any action against Israel or settlers in illegally occupied territories unless primary legislation were to be enacted. Again, how can this possibly be justified?
The Government’s explanation of the need for such extreme measures is that sanctions and boycotts of Israel cause anti-Semitism in communities. While we have seen no evidence of this, several Jewish organisations believe that the Bill will impede the UK’s ability to combat anti-Semitism. Many organisations are opposing the Bill and saying that the reverse will be the case. The Union of Jewish Students, for example, unanimously decided to oppose the Bill, as have 40 Israeli NGOs, and has called on our Parliament to reject it. Finally, Diaspora Alliance said:
“The rhetoric promoting this bill erroneously conflates efforts to hold Israel accountable with hostility against Jewish people. This kind of rhetoric gives the impression that the most effective solution to combatting antisemitism lies in the protection of the interests of a foreign power, rather than in the policies that protect Jewish citizens of the UK from prejudice, harassment and discrimination—like all other British citizens”.

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow that speech, although I respectfully point out that groups such as Diaspora Alliance hold the same sway and weight in the Jewish community as, for example, Gays for Trump would in the homosexual community in America. You can always find a Jew or Jewish group who will say whatever you want; going back to the Talmud, we are a disputatious people. I would gently warn noble Lords against picking people in the Jewish community who happen to agree with what they say. The two main communal bodies, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council have been forthright in support of the Bill.
Let me turn to Clause 3(7), which is what this amendment focuses on. As we know, the way in which the Bill works is that unless a country is added to the Schedule by the Secretary of State, a public body cannot discriminate against it on essentially political grounds—I paraphrase. Clause 3(7) provides more procedural protection to Israel and to the territories listed in it because its effect is that a future Secretary of State cannot add Israel or those territories to the Schedule—that can be done only by way of primary legislation, as the noble Baroness just pointed out.
The purpose of this amendment is obvious although I note that, perhaps wisely, its proposers were neither able nor willing to say so in terms in a Member’s explanatory statement. Its purpose is to strip Israel of that procedural protection to make it easier procedurally, and therefore also politically, for a future Secretary of State to give a green light to a boycott of Israel. That, in terms, is what this amendment is designed to do and what, if it became part of the Bill, it would do.
Two main arguments have been made in support of removing Clause 3(7) from the Bill—let me say a word or two about each. The first is that Clause 3(7) does not distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as it is said the UK is required to do. There are two points in relation to that: first, what is the source of this supposed obligation?
I referred in an earlier group to the opinion from Richard Hermer KC. I declare an interest: he is a friend, but the fact that he is will not stop me saying that I think he has got it hopelessly wrong on this point. His opinion says that there is a
“wider international law obligation on all states to ensure that impediments to Palestinian self-determination are brought to an end”.
To support that proposition, he cites the 2004 ICJ advisory opinion on the separation wall. That, of course, is an advisory opinion and, in terms, is limited to the separation wall itself, which the ICJ refers to as an “impediment” to Palestinian self-determination
“resulting from the construction of the wall”.
We could mount a very good argument, and I would, that it is the construction of that wall which advances Palestinian self-determination because without it, there would still be suicide bombings and people blown up on buses and in cafes, but let us put that to one side.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I just want to correct the noble Lord. The judgment did not say that the wall was illegal; it said that it was placed illegally because it  was placed in the Occupied Territories, not on the boundary between the State of Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: That is not the point I was making, but the noble Lord is absolutely right. My point was whether there is in that judgment some sort of obligation on us not to impede the construction of a Palestinian state. However, the noble Lord is absolutely right in his characterisation of that part of the advisory opinion.
The only obligation the judgment refers to, therefore, is an obligation not to recognise the Occupied Palestinian Territories as part of Israel. That is in the advisory opinion as an obligation. UK government policy does not do so, and this Bill does not do so either.
Then we look at the other supposed source of this obligation: UN Security Council Resolution 2334, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in moving the amendment. That goes no further. That, in paragraph 5, “calls on states”. Let us just be clear: that is not an international law obligation. With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who characterised that as a UK commitment, it is not. As other noble Lords will know much better than I do, the use of words such as “requires,” “obliges” and “calls on” are important distinctions—we will come later to what distinctions are—in UN Security Council resolutions. In any event, that only “calls on states” to distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and not to lump them together.
Secondly, in so far as there is any legal obligation, which there is not, it would only be one to distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Clause 3(7) does that. It does distinguish: you distinguish between things by treating them distinctly. You do not need to treat them differently. Those are two distinct, or different, things. This Bill is therefore entirely consistent with UK government policy and with UN Security Council Resolution 2334. That is a complete answer to the first point.
Let me go to the second point, which is the question about why Israel is treated differently. That is the main question underlying much of the debate on this clause. I have already explained that the differential treatment is procedural and not substantive; so why, asked the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in moving his amendment, is Israel treated differently in this Bill? I answered that question in my speech at Second Reading. The short answer—and I will not repeat it—is that Israel is constantly subjected to differential and discriminatory treatment, both by international bodies such as the UN and its rather unhappily named Human Rights Council, on which sit some of the world’s biggest abusers of human rights, and by some public authorities in this country. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has asked the question about why Israel is treated differently, let me answer it by reference to his oral contributions in your Lordships’ House.
Over the past 10 years, the noble Lord has—and I have benefited from them—contributed to many debates on many topics in your Lordships’ House. I thought I would have a look at some of his contributions relating to some of the countries set out in the list from the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in his Amendment 49.  I know he is now no longer going to move that amendment, but it is a useful list because it sets out those countries that have poor, or worse, human rights records.
On the basis of my researches in Hansard, the current position is as follows. I am not going to go through them all, but here are some. The number of times in the last 10 years that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has referred to Saudi Arabia is zero; Yemen, zero; Myanmar, zero; Sudan, zero; the Uighurs, zero; North Korea, zero; Congo, zero; Venezuela, zero; Iran, zero; China, one, in the context of a speech on the West Bank; Syria, one, in the context of a speech on Gaza; Ukraine, one, to ask why we do not treat Israel the same way we treat Russia; Israel and Palestine—nine.

Lord Warner: I am a great believer in only talking about things you understand and have observed. What I have done is go very often to Gaza and the Occupied Territories and talk to some of the people who have been trying to intervene to help the cause of an independent Palestinian state. That has caused me to actually come back rather horrified as to what I have seen about the way the Israelis have treated some Palestinians. There has been a prolonged occupation of territory by successive Israeli Governments— territory that was won by war and is illegal internationally. There have been untold numbers of allegations of breaches of international law by the occupying forces of Israel, so all I have done in my humble way is to report these to His Majesty’s Government as part of cross-party groups that have been to those countries.

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: My Lords, all I am doing is highlighting that, when it comes to gross breaches of human rights around the world, Israel is treated differently, both in the manner that I have described and, if I may say so respectfully, by the noble Lord in his contributions to this House. When people stop treating Israel differently, Clause 3(7) will not be needed, but until then it is a necessary and essential part of this Bill.
I am disappointed to see His Majesty’s Opposition supporting the amendment. I echo the comments of my noble friend Lord Leigh about the regard that many of us have—certainly I do personally—for the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury. He will understand that, when I say I am disappointed at the Opposition’s stance, I am not making a personal comment, but I am disappointed at the substantive position that they are taking.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: The noble Lord knows that I listen attentively to what he says. Earlier he said that the Occupied Palestinian Territories were being afforded a protection under the Bill. He is aware that existing trading and investment relations are covered by a UK-Palestinian Authority bilateral agreement. Is he aware that the Palestinian Authority has asked for this protection?

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: I am looking at the time. I am happy to continue this conversation elsewhere, but I will say this: I would be happy if  Clause 3(7) encompassed not only Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories but the Palestinian Authority, because I do not want anybody using divestment or boycotts as a lever in the Middle East. We should all be working for peace, and we do not work for peace through BDS. I hope that the Opposition will reconsider their position but, in the meantime and with apologies to the House for overstaying my welcome a little, I support the Bill as drafted and therefore oppose the noble Lord’s amendment.

Baroness Altmann: My Lords, I support the remarks of my noble friends Lady Noakes, Lord Leigh and Lord Wolfson. This amendment would be deleterious to the Palestinians themselves. I cite the example of SodaStream, which had to close down its factory in the Occupied Territories at a loss of 600 Palestinian jobs because of the BDS movement; it was a particular factor. I shall quote two people who worked there. Ali Jafar, a shift manager from a West Bank village, said:
“All the people who wanted to close”
it
“are mistaken … They didn’t take into consideration the families”.
Anas Abdul Wadud Ghayth, who had worked there for four years, said, as he wiped tears:
“We were one family. I am sad because I am leaving my friends who have worked here for a long time”.
I am not in favour of settlements. I certainly believe that Israel has offered many times, and would offer again, to get out of territory that is currently occupied in exchange for a genuine peace deal. It has tried and would try again. Currently, there is perhaps a different mindset among those leading the country, but that is not necessarily permanent. At the moment, they consider these territories part of Israel. They are not necessarily permanently part of Israel, and I believe that they would ultimately be given up or exchanged in return for a genuine peace deal.
Currently, however, it is occupying them and providing jobs for Palestinian people who want them and could not find gainful employment otherwise. That was confirmed when, for example, the SodaStream factory shut down. From a security perspective, if Israel were to give back to the Golan Heights, it would be signing its own death warrant. You will know that if you have been to that area and seen what is there. Equally, with the Occupied Territories on the West Bank, I believe there is potential for a two-state solution that recognises both sides’ right to exist, but Israel needs a partner that is willing to recognise its own right to exist. This Bill is designed to protect, in the meantime, both Israel and the jobs being created in those territories.
However, like my noble friends, I have the most enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who I think genuinely wants to find a way to work through this and a wording that will let us deal with this issue in a way that is acceptable to all sides. I have no problem with that, and I hope we might have some meeting of minds, through which we can move forwards and try to achieve the aims of the Bill without offending noble Lords, on all sides. I have enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Warner, as well, who I have worked with in the past. Whether or not we agree on  this issue, I hope that noble Lords can see the points I am trying to make about the things I believe the Government are trying to achieve.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness paints a very rosy picture of the West Bank. From all my experience of being there, it is totally unlike what she is describing. There may be some factories employing Palestinians that have been closed down, but thousands of Palestinians have lost their livelihoods as a result of the settlements and the Israel Defense Forces promoting violence, and certainly allowing violence, by settlers against ordinary Palestinian farmers, who have lost their olive orchards and the land where they were growing grapes. I just do not believe she can have spoken to many representatives of Palestinian people, who are utterly miserable as a result of the Israeli occupation. To say that it is part of Israel—that is simply, legally, not the case.
Lastly, I want to challenge the noble Baroness on the suggestion that the Israeli Government are in favour of a two-state solution—on the contrary. The noble Baroness said just now that she is in favour of a two-state solution, as are many other people, and that she believes it will happen. If it is to happen, there has to be a complete change in tone and views by the Israeli Government. Successive Israeli Governments have done nothing to promote a two-state solution. On the contrary, they have done many things to make it impossible, through the constant building of settlements. It is not that they happened a long time ago; they continue to be built all the time.

Baroness Altmann: May I, with all due respect, clarify a few points for the noble Baroness? First, I understand that the current Israeli Government are not in favour, and I have said myself that I am not in favour of the settlements. I am in favour of a two-state solution, and always have been. Past Israeli Governments have offered a two-state solution and offered an exchange of land for peace time and again. I am not sure why the noble Baroness is shaking her head. Israel withdrew from Gaza itself without even an offer of peace from the other side, and this is where we have ended up.
I have great respect for the noble Baroness, and one can always hear two sides to any argument, but there are a large number of Palestinians who welcome the employment they have in those territories. There are others who may have a different view, but in the end, the only solution, as far as I am concerned, must be a two-state solution. The noble Baroness is ignoring the fact that the other side, whether it is the Palestinian Authority or Hamas, is intent on wiping Israel off the map. It is not interested in a two-state solution. Israel would offer, and has offered, a two-state solution. As I say, I have spoken to people on both sides, and I hope the noble Baroness might be able to meet some of the others I have met, who have a different view, clearly, from the ones she has spoken to.

Lord Leigh of Hurley: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I am sure she will agree with me that violence by settlers or Palestinians has to be condemned without reservation, and the full force of the law used against such perpetrators.

Baroness Altmann: I completely agree. I do not agree with the settlements, and I do not agree with the actions of the settlers. But that does not in any way change the situation we are dealing with here, which is that until there is a two-state solution, some partnership for peace and some agreement, the idea of boycotting, whether the Occupied Territories or Israel, will do damage both to Israel and to the Palestinians who are gainfully employed there. That is the point I was trying to make, not to defend the settlers or settlements.

Lord Sentamu: My Lords, third time of asking. First, I stand here as somebody who still mourns the death, the assassination, of Yitzhak Rabin, a great statesperson who was on the cusp of finding a solution that has evaded many people. I also mourn the loss of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. I was a great student of his; he taught me Hebrew and how to read the Hebrew scriptures. Also, before he died, he planted nine trees in Israel for me, so I have a little plot of land where those nine trees are.
What would he say about Clause 3(7)? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay; I am not sure that it is wisdom that, unfortunately, has included Israel in the clause. I know it is differentiated, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, has told us; we then have in paragraphs (b) and (c) the Occupied Territories and the Occupied Golan Heights. I just wonder what it is that is being asked of us. Legislation, at the heart of it, is a statement of public policy. What public policy are we doing with subsection (7)? What are we saying? I have never believed that you can use statute as a way to give assurance, because when the law is passed, it is already dated, so it may never actually deliver what you want. I am not so sure that these three paragraphs are a wonderful opportunity; is there not a better way of saying what you want?
I totally agree that, as the noble Lord reminded us, this differentiation is made because Israel comes up more than any other country in the world. What is it that drives that? Of course, being a Christian, I cannot say, but given the Second World War and the Holocaust, you have to have a heart that tells you, “Be very careful that you do not tread on holy ground”.
I am reminded of another great name who influenced me greatly on issues such as this: Rabbi Hugo Gryn, who was asked by a child on the radio, “Where was God in the Holocaust? Why wasn’t he there? Why didn’t he defend them?” Like all good rabbis who know the Torah, he gave the most beautiful answer: “In Auschwitz, God was being blasphemed and violated. The real question is, where was humanity, made in God’s image and likeness?” The question is, will our humanity find itself better in this subsection (7)? I am very doubtful, the way it is drafted, because it conflates two pieces of land, and I am not sure that is a very wise thing.
Of course, there is a need to make sure that a country that is small can develop. I was there not long ago; you discover that in 75 years the development is just unbelievable. The same could have happened in Gaza and in the West Bank. That opportunity is now becoming more and more difficult. What is it? How  can humanity emerge here? How can the springs of solidarity come out, instead of just either defending or criticising? I just want to say to the Minister that I am not so sure about that phrase—the way it is been put. Yes, it may give today some kind of assurance that people will not boycott Israel—“Don’t do this”. But the fact is that it is still the Holy Land and will still attract a lot of people, whatever anybody else tries to do, so I am not so sure. Is there a better way of putting it? Do you need to put “Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the occupied Golan Heights”? I am very doubtful; I am together with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on this.
I have one more thought. Recently I was the chair of Christian Aid and we did quite a lot of work in Gaza—there was a lot on educational health. I am no longer the chair, but the memory that I have is of people who somehow were in a very difficult place. Now, I do not know how you can describe it, because it is just horrendous. How do we as legislators find a way of never losing sight of our hope that the State of Israel will ultimately one day live in peace, the Palestinian people will have their own self-determination, and the neighbours around Israel will not intimidate it in whatever way? How do we create the thing that has eluded all of us? I suspect in the end that this legislation has to be extremely careful that it does not scare the horses or give assurance which you cannot actually physically deliver, because that is what can happen. It does not change the footprints on the ground. One last thought is from Martin Luther King, Jr. He said that, in the end, what we will remember are not the terrible actions and words of our enemies but the silence of our friends.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: My Lords, inevitably this group has raised the wider issues that we have debated within it. A week has not gone by without either Statement repeats or Questions that I have contributed to. Since 7 October, I have visited the region; I have visited the kibbutzim, the hostage families and the illegal outposts and settlements. I say, in the most sincere way I can, to the Minister, that I do not believe that this particular part of the Bill and the Bill as a whole will reduce any of the tensions or make a complex situation any simpler or clearer. For many people, it will make the situation even more complex and divisive at the very time when we need there to be more common ground. So it is with regret that I need to support the amendments in this group.
Paragraph 20 of the impact assessment states:
“The intended outcome of the Bill is to ensure there is a consistent approach to”
UK Government foreign policy. However, it should also be noted that there has been inconsistency in the statements of Ministers over recent months. On 12 March, the Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, replied to my question on the occupation of Gaza:
“It is our legal position, and has been for some time, that Israel is the occupying power in Gaza”.—[Official Report, 12/3/24; col. 1913.]
However, on 24 April, a Home Office Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, replied to my question on Gaza:
“I might dispute the noble Lord’s premise there: I am not sure that I would characterise it as an occupying power”.—[Official Report, 24/4/24; col. 1466.]
So there is inconsistency even between government departments.
I would have thought that the definitive position on the topic would be the statement from the Government in their document on the strategic objectives of a UK-Israel free trade agreement, which sets the parameters for UK trade and investment with the State of Israel. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, is listening, as it states in very clear terms:
“The UK is clear that it does not recognise the Occupied Palestinian Territories as part of Israel, including the settlements. The UK is clear that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law. As set out in FCDO guidance on overseas business risk, there are clear risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements”.
This Bill is a very substantial change to government policy that is still extant in the discussions between the UK Government and the Government of Israel over an FTA. I have no opposition to those discussions when it comes to UK free trade—as we said at Second Reading, these Benches do not support the BDS campaign and never have—but we cannot have this Bill and that statement at the same time. Which is the superior element? We know, I think, that when this Bill becomes legislation, it will trump the statement, but there needs to be a change in government policy so that the Bill does not state simply that authorities must adhere to government policy, because the Bill is changing government policy.
Currently, a business choosing to invest or carry out business in the Occupied Palestinian Territories will be referred to the business risk and it can make its own judgment as to whether that risk will outweigh the benefit—or it may be liable for legal considerations. This Bill will prohibit it from making that decision, which is wrong and makes no sense for our relationship with either the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the State of Israel.
It is doubly wrong because, as many noble Lords may know, the issue is not just about the settlements. There are also outposts. The fastest growth recently has been in outposts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. For Members of the Committee who may not be aware, outposts—the fastest-growing element—are illegal under Israeli law. This Bill would prohibit anyone making a decision to invest in something which is illegal under Israeli law. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point, because it is a very significant issue.
My noble friend Lord Oates made a very convincing argument about the inclusion in Clause 1(7) of an equivalence in law, notwithstanding the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. I am not going to make a semantic argument about whether there is a comma, or an “or” that should have been an “and”. The issue of substance is perfectly clear. It is the argument that the noble Lord said he would reflect on when I asked him about this question.
Why does this Bill provide protections to the Occupied Palestinian Territories when they have not asked for that? Indeed, they have specifically asked not to have it, because it is not a protection; it is an inhibitor for the British authorities to police the current British approach of advising on risk for investments in the illegal settlement areas of the Occupied Palestinian  Territories. It removes protection, and the concern about the subsection is that it removes it in perpetuity, because it does not allow Ministers to change the schedules when it comes to singling out the outposts that I referred to before. We might have to rely only on the element of sanctions when we have designated individuals who are settlers. That is the only time there would be the prevention of having an economic relationship with them. So, instead of offering a protection, the Bill singles out a diminishing of the ability of those within the Occupied Palestinian Territories to protect themselves effectively.
I can inform the Committee that this is not an esoteric or theoretical argument; it is active now. Every six months the British consul writes to the Israeli Government seeking compensation for settler violence—compensation which seeks redress through the Israeli courts. The investment risks are real, but the Bill would prohibit any British decision-maker from taking that into consideration. That cannot be right.
Finally, I regret the fact that Ministers have given inconsistent statements on the position of the Occupied Territories. There is confusion about the investments. I ask one final question of the Minister. There may well be—and in fact there are—public-private partnerships that include British investors in enterprises both in Israel and in the Palestinian Authority area. If their partner in Israel or the Palestinian Authority area chose to stop that activity as a result of their own Government’s policy—we know that that is happening, particularly in Tel Aviv—the British partner would be prohibited from ending that agreement. Surely that is a nonsensical position. So my appeal to the Minister is to pause and reflect, even at this late stage, not only the diplomatic consequences of this measure but on its practical implications, which could be considerable.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, I echo a number of the noble Lord’s comments. I must admit I find it difficult to understand how, at a moment of crisis in the Middle East, the Government have allowed Michael Gove to proceed with this reckless diplomatic and cavalier approach. How can we be a credible voice for a two-state solution when they legislate at home against their own foreign policy? That is the key issue.
I said repeatedly at Second Reading and in many groups that I recognised that there was a problem. My party recognises that there is a problem. We do not support BDS; we oppose it. How, in this very delicate situation, do we deal with it? You do not deal with it by undermining the very thing that would bring about peace and stability for Israel. Sadly, as we have heard from across the House, the Bill means a protracted legal battle in the courts. It will create more uncertainty than it addresses and, worse, it simply fuels yet more division. It will have achieved nothing. In fact, it could make matters worse. That is my position, and my party’s position.
On my previous amendment, we hoped to find a way forward where we could work together without causing those divisions. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, too; I have seen his work in action in Israel. I have seen my noble friend Lord Turnberg’s work trying to build intercommunity respect, peace and activity. I applaud that work and want to see it continue.
Sadly, I was in the West Bank last May and I did see the outposts—not settlements; these were outposts on the top of hills above Palestinian villages. I witnessed the fire of the harvest. I witnessed the burning of the cars of the Palestinian farmers who were trying to put out the fires. When I was standing there, I also saw the IDF watching it; it did not intervene, because it said that its sole responsibility was to protect citizens of Israel. That was truly shocking. I felt that it in no way was going to help support the Israel I believe in. We have to address these issues.
Why did I put my name to this amendment? I will tell you. I read Kit Malthouse’s speech in the House of Commons. I read the other comments from Conservative Members about it. I thought that what he said was incredibly powerful:
“I am afraid the Secretary of State is playing into the antisemitism we have seen rise in this country over the past few weeks””.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/10/23; col. 904.]
He quoted Jonathan Freedland at Second Reading:
“What is the favourite refrain of the antisemites? That Israel is the one country you’re not ‘allowed’ to criticise. This bill takes a canard and, in the case of boycotts, turns it into the law of the land”.
There is no requirement in law for this carve-out to exist. My previous amendment, if adopted, and if we could reach agreement on it, would mean that we would not need the Israel carve-out currently in the Bill. That is why I signed this amendment. My amendment seeks a way forward that shows that we should not treat Israel differently. We should not make it have a standard different from other countries. We should be consistent in our foreign policy; that is what we are trying to do.
I repeat that we need to work together to address what I know is a genuine problem but, for God’s sake, do not let us undermine our diplomatic effort to seek a peace in the Middle East. This is the most damaging part of the Bill because there is no doubt that it currently runs counter to decades of British diplomacy by both Conservative and Labour Governments. It could not come at a worse time.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that we should deal with the reality. The reality is that we are moving further and further away from a two-state solution. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that we should ensure that we give hope to Palestinians. Let us not take it away from them; let us ensure that there is a pathway to a two-state solution. It means trying to reform the Palestinian Authority and give it more credibility. It means that Hamas, which wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, needs to be removed, but that requires time, investment and support to the Palestinian people.
Sadly, while we spend hours debating this Bill, we are not focusing on what should be our real effort: to support the diplomatic efforts. We are bringing the Bill in at a time when the Americans and the British were working with Arab neighbouring countries, together with the Israeli Government, to seek a way forward. The Abraham accords were a means to something, and we are in danger of completely losing that.
I support the Foreign Secretary’s efforts. I think he is right to focus on these issues and to say that we must give hope to the Palestinians, but the Bill does nothing to enhance our efforts towards a two-state solution.  It absolutely has the opposite effect and that is why I supported Kit Malthouse’s amendments. What he said in the other place was right. I hope noble Lords and the Minister will agree with me.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his comments. I feel a bit left out as the only person who has not been to Palestine or Israel. I was due to go on 7 October. As we have discussed, this amendment would remove Section 37 from the Bill so that Ministers could by secondary legislation allow public authorities to carry out their own boycott campaigns against Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the occupied Golan Heights. I am keen to make progress on our line-by-line consideration of the Bill, but I think I should briefly repeat that this legislation has three objectives: first, to uphold the integrity of British foreign policy decided by the Cabinet collectively on advice from the FCDO and others; secondly, to enable public authorities to focus on their core functions when delivering for the public on investment and procurement and to avoid damage to community cohesion; and, thirdly, to prevent the most divisive of these campaigns by public authorities which target Israel in particular and promote anti-Semitism in the UK.
We have seen the disturbing things happening in our universities today, with Jewish students not feeling safe, and what has happened in some local authorities in recent years. Our manifesto commitment and this Bill seek to address one aspect of the current troubles, including divestment campaigns. We need to find a way through. I am grateful for the suggestion of meetings between now and Report.
This amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, would allow Ministers to negate by secondary legislation the key objective of our primary legislation. That would not be right. We have heard from the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Leigh, about how the BDS campaign singles out the world’s only Jewish state for unique treatment, and we heard in the Public Bill Committee of the distress felt by the Jewish community when Israel is targeted in such a manner by public authorities that, it seems to it, in no other case attempt to pursue foreign policy. These anti-Israel BDS campaigns do very little to promote peace in the Middle East, while sowing division and distrust in the UK.
I want to take the opportunity of our discussion of international issues to return briefly to the question raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. He asked whether public authorities would make the judgment of whether a procurement or investment decision risked putting the UK in breach of international law. Public authorities would make that judgment. They would need to do so to the existing legal standard of reasonableness and would be subject to the enforcement powers in the Bill if they did not. I have committed to taking away and considering carefully the points made about international law today, and I look forward to returning to that issue on Report.
Let me return to my overall case. The purpose of Clause 3(7) is to give Parliament the ability to scrutinise a future ministerial decision that would reverse a core  objective of this legislation. Such a decision could have a very harmful effect on community cohesion while doing very little to advance peace and security in the Middle East. The amendment would allow Ministers to use secondary legislation to negate the key objectives. That would undermine parliamentary sovereignty. Should a future Government wish to allow such campaigns by public authorities, they should go through the same legislative scrutiny that this Government are going through to prevent them. The Government have ensured in the Bill that the scope of delegated powers is appropriately limited and that the core of the Bill cannot be altered by statutory instrument. In addition to this clause, we have limited the ability of the Secretary of State to remove local authorities, UK and devolved government Ministers and local government pension schemes from the scope. I also want to highlight that we have not received any challenge from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee with regard to the Bill.
We should be in no doubt that preventing BDS campaigns by public authorities against Israel, the Occupied Territories and the occupied Golan Heights is a core part of the Bill. This is due to the impact that such campaigns can have in contributing to and legitimising anti-Semitism, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
However, it is important to note that nothing in the Bill changes our foreign policy in regard to these areas. We do not recognise—I emphasise this—the settlements as part of Israel. Our position is reflected in our continued support for UN Security Council Resolution 2334. The Government’s position is that the Bill is in compliance with that resolution. My noble friend Lord Wolfson explained well why this is the case, and why Israel can, and should, be treated differently, reflecting the way that it is often singled out for unique treatment by many others.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She is responding very carefully to this debate. It is the Government’s position that the Occupied Palestinian Territories are a separate legal entity that the Government of Israel do not represent. Indeed, the UK has its own direct bilateral relationships with the representatives of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Have they asked for the particular protections under this clause?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My Lords, our position on the Middle East peace process, which I am not sure entirely answers the noble Lord’s question, is that we support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel, living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states, and a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees.
My noble friend Lord Ahmad updated the House earlier on Gaza. The Prime Minister has told Prime Minister Netanyahu and regional leaders that we are deeply concerned about the prospect of a military offensive in Rafah. The immediate priority must be a humanitarian pause in the fighting, which is the best route to secure the safe release of hostages and significantly step up aid to Gaza.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. With respect, she has not answered my question. The Government do not recognise the Government of Israel to represent the Occupied Palestinian Territories in our discussions with their representatives. I ask in clear terms, since we are at the stage in this legislation where it has to be crystal clear, have the representatives of the OPTs requested the protections under the Bill in this clause?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: I am clear that the Occupied Territories are separate. I think that that three-quarters answers the noble Lord’s question but let me reflect further. I certainly would not want to mislead him on such an important point.

Lord Collins of Highbury: Can I also ask a question? The Minister mentioned that the Delegated Powers Committee did not comment on the Bill in a negative way. On the point about the amendment on free speech, I know that we have other clauses to deal with it, but the Constitution Committee was quite clear that Clauses 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) unduly limit freedom of speech by preventing public bodies from stating that they would—or even might—make a procurement or investment decision. That committee asked this House to consider whether Clause 4 should be removed from the Bill, so the Minister’s assertion is not quite true. Regarding the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner—the Constitution Committee shares some of his views.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: Clearly, I do not think that we will be able to agree on this this evening. I replied to the excellent report by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and the Constitution Committee, and I will refresh my memory on that, if the noble Lord will allow.
In the meantime, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who asked about the Government’s position on Gaza—it is that Israel remains the occupying power in Gaza, as advised by the FCDO.

Lord Collins of Highbury: Yes, but does the Minister know why it says that? It is because an occupying power has duties—particularly under international humanitarian law—which is why the Foreign Secretary is monitoring this and has repeatedly said to the House that he will continue to monitor it. Israel has duties as an occupying power.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: Indeed, in situations of occupation, international humanitarian law expressly requires the occupier—I think this is the point that the noble Lord is making—to the fullest extent of the means available to it, to ensure food and medical supplies for the population of the occupation territory. We expect Israel to fulfil its obligations, and for all parties to adhere to humanitarian law. I am glad to be able to repeat that.
Nothing in the Bill changes the Government’s support for a two-state solution. We believe that open and honest discussions, rather than imposing sanctions or supporting anti-Israeli boycotts, best support our efforts  to help progress towards a negotiated solution. This is the position shared by the whole Government. But I continue to believe that it is important to retain for Parliament the ability to scrutinise a decision that would be so detrimental to community cohesion, through primary legislation and subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore respectfully ask that the noble Lord withdraw his amendment.

Lord Warner: I am glad it was “respectfully”, but I am totally unconvinced by what the Minister has said, just as, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about Clause 4, I was totally unconvinced in the previous discussion about my Amendment 48.
The Bill is a total mess. I was very happy to be taken down memory lane by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, about my interventions on events in Gaza, the West Bank and the Occupied Territories generally. One concentrates on these things in a parliamentary career because they are the things that often stand out a mile as cases of huge injustice. That has prompted me to make those visits and report back on them to Ministers in this Government. I am ashamed to say that, under successive Governments, we have made a poor fist of responding to some of those situations, which have persisted over a long period of time for the Palestinians. I make no apologies for attending to those kinds of concerns.
I have heard nothing in these debates this evening to make me resile from supporting the ideas that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, shared at Second Reading: that the Conservatives should be concentrating on delivering their manifesto commitment about boycotts. That is what the purpose should be. What the Government have now done has turned this into an argument not about BDS but about Palestine, the Israeli Government and these events. They have done it at a time—probably the worst possible time—when we should be engaging in these kinds of discussions.
In the circumstances, I am totally unconvinced. In recommending the removal of Clause 3(7), I see myself as a peacemaker. From the many contributions made this evening, I think we should give serious consideration to doing the simple thing of taking this provision out of the Bill. I guarantee that I shall come back to this on Report. I would be happy to meet with Ministers to discuss it. I would very much like to go with my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and join in a discussion about trying to make the Bill more sensible. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 20 withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed.

  
Schedule: Exceptions
  

Amendment 20A not moved.

Amendment 21

Lord Willetts: Moved by Lord Willetts
21: The Schedule, page 12, line 21, at end insert—“3A Section 1 does not apply to—  (a) a registered higher education provider in England, as defined by section 3(10) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017;(b) an institution within the higher education sector in Wales, as defined by section 91 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;(c) an institution within the higher education sector in Scotland, as defined by section 56 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992;(d) a higher education institution in Northern Ireland, as defined by article 30 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would remove universities and other higher education providers from the requirement to act in accordance with Clause 1.

Lord Willetts: My Lords, we have been going for quite a long time. I will try to keep this brisk because there is apparently still a lot of business to get through today. I should declare my interests in the register, particularly my role as a member of the council of the University of Southampton, because I think university councils could be among the bodies covered by this proposed legislation. Although I will draw on my experiences there, these are of course my personal opinions.
In many ways, the purpose of this amendment, which is essentially to remove universities from the scope of this legislation, arises because universities are just the most acute example of the wider problems in this legislation that have already been discussed. I will briefly explain why I think some of these problems are particularly acute in higher education. First, is there actually a problem of boycotts, disinvestment and sanctions in the higher education sector? I have still not come across any actual, real examples of any university ever trying to do what this legislation would forbid.
There are certainly lots of examples of student unions campaigning on this, and earlier we heard some of those cited, but student unions are not—thank heavens—covered by this legislation. All these issues being debated in student unions are part of the process of learning, growing up and political engagement. But it seems rather odd to pass legislation affecting the universities, which do not do anything, and ignoring the student unions where all these debates happen. It is therefore not relevant to the actual decisions that any real university takes. What is the problem that is supposed to be solved?
I am aware of the media coverage today about what is happening in our universities. The Government’s argument is that this helps with community cohesion. We have heard a lot about community cohesion. I have to say that the weight placed on community cohesion in the context of boycotts and disinvestment is the exact opposite of the weight attached to those kinds of arguments when we were debating the freedom of speech legislation. The irony is that one of the arguments then was that there are people who have to run these institutions. They have a set of rival claims to balance. Is it legitimate for them to say, “Of course you want to hold your controversial event, but perhaps not during the same week as exams are happening”? Or, “Of course you want to have your speaker who may be anti-gay, but perhaps not in Gay Pride week”?
In other words, lots of arguments about community cohesion were completely dismissed on the grounds that there is an absolutist right to freedom of speech, and it is just possible that some of the activities that apparently are now concerning No. 10 are protected by the very legislation that the Government passed only a few months back on an absolutist argument: “You must be able to say these kinds of things”. On the very first day on which the legislation was announced, the then Universities Minister said on the radio, “Yes, of course, Holocaust denial would be permitted and protected by this legislation”. It is a bit odd but, anyway, we have now gone from community cohesion being totally irrelevant to community cohesion being the absolute argument that trumps all others. It is a legitimate consideration but does not bear the weight now being placed on it, and it is probably a great pity that it was not given any weight at all when we were considering freedom of speech.
When it comes to freedom of speech, universities are lively, disputatious places, as are councils of universities. When legislation is supposed to apply to universities and tries to conclude that it would be wrong and prohibited if a decision
“was influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”,
it is hard to imagine a lively debate in a university council that does not involve somebody sounding off about some foreign state or other and how much they disapprove of it and what it is doing for some reason or other. The idea that you can try to forbid consideration of these types of factors in a decision-taking environment such as a university seems to be total fantasy.
It is not only that we all know the life of universities and how disputatious they are but the Government themselves, in other contexts, encourage universities to think about these kinds of factors. Until last year I was on the board of UKRI, which was developing a trusted research agenda that asked universities to consider some of those factors. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, has already been praised enough this evening, but he astutely quoted from the advice that the business department gives to businesses. I am sorry to repeat what he said, but it was absolutely to the point. The advice states:
“UK citizens and businesses should be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements, as well as possible abuses of the rights of individuals”.
Businesses are invited to consider that. Will the Minister explain whether it would be illegal for someone in or chairing a meeting of a university council, after a decision has been taken, to cite the advice that the Government themselves have provided in a different context? What if someone said, “We have been influenced on our economic and financial decisions because of possible abuses of the rights of individuals”? Is that legitimate, or is it now to be illegal in universities but advice from government in a different context? It really is quite a muddle.
The Minister may reply to that concern, “But universities are public bodies”. It is not totally clear what makes a university a public body, and we have also heard the expression “public authorities”—I do  not know whether that comes charged with some other particular legal meaning. We have also had “hybrid public bodies”. I am increasingly concerned that the bit-by-bit process of adding more regulation and more legal compliance duties on universities pulls them into the public sector, when one of the reasons we have such a well-respected and high-quality university system is precisely the universities’ autonomy. They used to score very highly just for their capacity to run their own affairs. With every step-by-step process in which they appear in more and more of these lists of bodies to be covered by legislation, the greater is the risk that they lose their autonomy and eventually end up as part of the public sector.
Of course, this is just one more step. The ONS is reviewing whether universities should be categorised as in the public sector. This is not necessarily the straw that will break the camel’s back and will determine that they are in the public sector, but every time in this Chamber we find some other cause that we care about and say “Let’s add universities to the list and cover them as well”, the greater the risk that that is where they will end up.
I remember the days when the Government increased taxes on North Sea oil companies. We never knew at what point they would go on investment strike and turn away; it was hard to predict, but at some point they did. At some point, we will have brought universities into the public sector if we are not careful and, when we look back to how it happened, this will be one of the many steps in the process that takes us to that position.
I am more concerned about that when I hear the other doctrine of the single foreign policy. It is quite a new doctrine, this idea that somehow all these public bodies, in some broad sense going beyond the public sector, all have to have one foreign policy. It is true that universities can play a role in foreign policy. I remember when I used to go on missions to India, accompanied on a couple of occasions by the vice-chancellor of Cambridge. I knew my place. I would speak to the Indian Science Minister or the Indian Universities Minister but, because the Prime Minister of India was an alumnus of Cambridge, the vice-chancellor went to see him and occasionally told me what had happened in these conversations. It was quite helpful to have the vice-chancellor’s much higher-level connections than I could possibly muster.
Of course, universities are places where people debate foreign policy issues. They certainly debate all these moral considerations around boycotts. Can we not be a little more relaxed, accepting that, on the very broad definition of public bodies, which is now in this legislation, there will be, in a modern, diverse civil society, a range of views? The Foreign Secretary’s authority to communicate British foreign policy is not weakened by some university having a view on the morality of something happening in the Middle East. The old doctrine was exactly the opposite: “One of the great things about Britain is that we have lively public debate, there’s no central control and we don’t go round giving everybody else instructions about what they should say about these things. That’s just the kind of country we are”. And I think that was great—we were not anxious about the wide range of different views that might be expressed.
I referred to the Foreign Secretary, my noble friend Lord Cameron, and perhaps that is a note on which to end. One of his most effective political slogans was that he wanted to see a small state and a big society. The more we expand this definition of public bodies and public authorities that all have to be guided by the single foreign policy doctrine, the more we grow the state and shrink society. That is not the right direction in which to go and universities should not be part of it.

Lord Mann: My Lords, I come to this from an entirely different perspective from that of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, sharing literally no arguments with him. Therefore, I shall refrain from taking up any time to offer any critique of his pro-university analysis.
I should reference my interest in the register: I am an unpaid, independent government advisor on anti-Semitism. I speak very independently. I suspect that I have been to more universities than any other Member of your Lordships’ House or any member of the Government or any Member of the House of Commons in the last two years. I have spoken with more university vice-chancellors on anti-Semitism than anybody else. I have spoken to virtually all of them over the last three years—some multiple times. I have been in and I have solved specific problems with them, and I think they have been reasonably pleased to have had my assistance in solving them. That is what they have told me. So I know what is going on. I meet with the Union of Jewish Students regularly, as I do with Universities UK. It is fair to say, in the five years that I have been carrying out this role, that I have spent more time on the university sector than on any other single issue.
My approach has been lauded in the Jewish community, and I think it is successful. My—if you like—philosophical, but also strategic and even tactical, approach has been to say to the universities that, in dealing with anti-Semitism—anti-Jewish racism—the critical thing they have to do is listen on a regular basis to their Jewish students, who are organised through Jewish societies. There are about 80 of them across the country. I speak regularly, and have recently done so, to large numbers of students at Jewish societies in universities, and I spend a lot of time listening to them on their perspectives, their fears, their ambitions and how they see themselves as being Jewish both in the country, in the city or town or sometimes rurality that they are based in, and in their university. I feed that back, for better or for worse.
My strategy is, therefore, that when I speak to university vice-chancellors, for example, I tell them that what they have to do is to get their head round what anti-Semitism is, and how Jewish students and staff should have equality of status and what that means, and what the obstacles to that have been and are. The organising strategy is very simple: they should go and speak regularly to their Jewish students because they are organised. If there is a coherent system of organising Jewish staff members—not just academics because there are as many, certainly in some of the bigger cities, non-academic Jewish staff as there are academic staff—and an effective forum for Jewish staff, and there are some, then by all means speak to  them as well. But there is no system for that, so that is not a system solution; that is something that should be done, something that is encouraged and something that more could be done to develop.
If the university leadership speaks to the Jewish student leadership, they will have a perspective on what is going on. If they do it every year, there will be a turnover of Jewish student leaders—that is inevitable in a student environment—and they will have a bit of a time series of what the issues are and how well they are doing in dealing with them.
What has been remarkable since 7 October is not how much anti-Semitism there has been in our universities but how little there has been compared with what has gone on in the United States, for example, or in Canada or Australia, as relevant comparable countries. That is because the universities are listening and talking to their Jewish students and responding, initiating and thinking through. Having a working definition of anti-Semitism as a benchmark has been invaluable in doing that and in understanding the issues. That is working.
However, there are problems; I deal with them. The biggest problem—I repeat what I said at Second Reading—is the ostracisation; the isolation when your so-called friends do not speak to you and the micro- aggressions that go with that. That is the worst problem that Jewish students face, and it has dramatically increased. Students are uncomfortable where they live because their flatmates are not including them in things any more because they are “Zionist” or “pro-Israel”, whatever that means—it can mean many different things.
That is the big problem, so I am looking at the Bill and asking: what does it do, if it applies to universities, to assist those students and staff? The answer is: it does nothing—zero, zilch. I do not mean a little bit; I mean nothing. It does nothing about the academic boycotts, which is a problem. It does nothing about the isolation if, for example, someone wants to work with, say, an Israeli university but is blocked by the rest of the department from doing so. If someone wants to research in a particular way, on a thesis or in a postgraduate setting, they are discouraged from doing so. These are the real problems that come to me. It is insidious and dangerous racism.
I come back to the question, because in making law we have to look at it: what does the Bill do about that in the context of universities? The answer is nothing; there have been no successful BDS campaigns in our universities—none. I have been around long enough to have seen and experienced the origins of the campaign, not just in the last three or five years in my current role, or the 20 years I have been around Parliament, but the 40 years in which I have been in some kind of public life. For all those 40 years, there have been zero successful BDS campaigns and therefore it is not a big problem. They are unsuccessful campaigns.
I fully understand. I know the people who organise them and I know how they do so. I am on the receiving end of the abuse. I have had people jailed for targeting me and my family. I could take noble Lords back to when I was stopped from speaking in universities because I dared to visit Israel in 1984. When I was in the West Bank, I met a man called Sinwar—noble Lords may have heard of him. He was the student leader at Birzeit University at the time. It is probably a  good job I was not photographed with him. But after I went on that visit to Israel, I was banned from speaking in universities.
I have been through all that, and I am telling noble Lords that there is nothing in this Bill that assists Jewish students. Frankly, it does not matter whether you listen to me, because if you go back to the principle that universities should listen to Jewish students, the Jewish students say that they do not want the Bill to cover universities. What are we doing if we allow that to happen? Jewish students are clear; they do not want it. It does not help them. Is it some kind of political game—I am not sure who it is aimed at—to put it in? There is no case in tackling anti-Semitism for universities to be included in this Bill. By definition, when the Union of Jewish Students says: “No, thank you”, they are the arbiters, the front line—the people impacted and affected. It does nothing on academic staff and academic boycotts.
Before I am, no doubt, sacked by government—as I am not paid, that is kind of an arbitrary thing— I intend to offer to every single political party, for we do not know who will be in power afterwards, a proper set of proposals on the changes that are needed to improve what is going on for students with anti-Semitism. This Bill is not it. This amendment is right and appropriate; it would be outrageous, when the Union of Jewish Students says: “No, thank you”, for us to ignore it. I recommend the amendment to the Committee.

Lord Johnson of Marylebone: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow such a powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and that from my noble friend Lord Willetts just now. I should declare an interest; I am on the council of the Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology, and I am a visiting professor at King’s College London. I want to be sure that is on the record.
I also want to be clear at the outset that I appreciate the good intentions of the drafters of this Bill. Of course, as it is a manifesto commitment, when it comes to later stages, I will certainly support it; I hope my noble friend Lord Leigh will take note of that. However, I think there are real problems with it, which have been brilliantly clarified by the two excellent speeches that preceded mine. I will be brief, because they have made many of the points that I wanted to make and much better than I will be able to. I will ask the Minister just to clarify a couple of things on which I need some reassurance.
The first relates to the points that my noble friend Lord Willetts made about the ONS’s review of the status of universities, and the likelihood that this measure will inadvertently tip them towards being reclassified as part of the public sector. It would be good to understand what assessment the Government have made of that likelihood and of the impact it would have on universities’ ability to borrow and make investment decisions of their own without the kind of Treasury oversight they would have if they were drawn further into the public sector.
Secondly, like my noble friend Lord Willetts, I would like a better understanding of how the provisions in this Bill can be squared with all the provisions that  were enacted in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act that we passed just last year. The Office for Students is meant to stand for the widest possible definition of freedom of speech; anything within the law should be permissible on our campuses. The Bill will considerably narrow what is lawful speech. My concern is that that is a very heavy-handed approach, and one that does not sit easily with the Government’s intentions in passing the freedom of speech Act last year.
I would be interested to know how the Minister feels the Office for Students’ new director of freedom of speech will, in practice, be able to promote a climate of freedom of speech when the OfS will at the same time have to fine universities simply for saying that they would have made certain investment decisions had this law not been in place. It feels like overkill, and I imagine that in the OfS people’s heads are spinning as they ponder how this new legislation will work in practice when directionally, it is so at odds with everything they have been legislated to do in the freedom of speech Act.
Thirdly, picking up on the brilliant points just made by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, I will probe the Minister for actual examples of universities succumbing to pressure of this kind. As the noble Lord said just now, there is precious little evidence of BDS campaigns being effective. Following Second Reading, I put down a couple of Written Questions to try to get on the record from the Government some examples of instances where universities had succumbed to pressure from BDS campaigns. In her kind reply to my Written Questions, my noble friend the Minister said the Government were
“aware that the BDS Movement has taken credit for divestments … carried out by universities following pressure from student campaigns”.
The Minister’s reply cited one example of the BDS movement taking credit for divestments
“by the University of Manchester in 2020 and procurement decisions by King’s College London and Southampton University”.
Does the Minister agree that there is an important distinction between the BDS movement taking credit for something and a university actually succumbing to pressure in relation to investment and procurement decisions? Surely, they are two very different things. People claim all sorts of things but that does not necessarily make them true. I would like to know, if possible, what the Government have independently done to establish the veracity of the BDS movement’s claims in this respect.
Finally, like the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and my noble friend Lord Willetts—I have added my name to his amendment—I urge the Government to reflect carefully on whether universities, which are still in the private sector and are, by and large, autonomous organisations, really need to be in the Bill at all.

Lord Verdirame: My Lords, I will return to a question that I raised on the first day in Committee: the way in which the Bill will impact on academic collaborations. Out of abundant caution, I also refer to the register of interests: I am a professor of international  law at King’s, although, as far as I know, if my understanding of the Bill is correct, I do not think I am involved in investment or procurement decisions.
I raise this issue because paragraph 20 of the Explanatory Notes states:
“The ban in clause 1 is not intended to prohibit a higher education institution from deciding to terminate a collaboration with a foreign university on the grounds of academic freedom”.
Can the Minister say whether it follows from that that the ban is intended to prohibit a higher education institution from deciding to terminate, or not to initiate, a collaboration with a foreign university on the grounds of political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct?
Academic collaborations can come about in a wide range of ways. Sometimes it is just the initiative of a single academic, who will get in contact with academics they know and have worked with in another institution. If they are to be caught by the Bill, it is important to have clarity, because that is the sort of activity a lot of academics would be involved in. It appears to be an example of serious overreach of the scope of the Bill, which the amendments proposed would take good care of. However, I would like to understand a bit better from the Government how they think the Bill as it stands would impact academic collaborations.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I would like to add my support to that already given to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts.
I should declare a past interest, if not a present one. I worked for many years as an academic and led two higher education institutions, where I was very much involved in international collaborations. Indeed, as a Minister, I led the then Labour Government’s campaign, known as the Prime Minister’s initiative, to include a number of international collaborations and international students. To pick up on the last speaker’s questions, if this Bill were to damage that in any way, it would be extremely deleterious and affect the long-term reputation and quality of British higher education.
The main problem I have with this has been reflected in what others have said. This Bill creates a problem that does not exist. We should never legislate to create problems that do not exist; it is a crazy way of going about things. I was very much affected, as the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, was, by the excellent and powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mann. This will not help Jewish students one iota. There are many things we should be doing to ensure the safety and freedom of Jewish students in our universities, but this is of no help whatsoever. The other point I will pick up on is that made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts: this will not do anything to help community cohesion, either, which is of course extremely important.
On freedom of speech, which is at the centre of this, one of the things that defines universities—it is part of the nature of the academy—is that argument takes place. It is part of their lifeblood. Indeed, universities have a duty to promote freedom of speech and argument, and in that I would include argument about foreign policy. There is no single foreign policy, as I was trying to say earlier, if in not a very coherent way. Foreign policy is diverse, and changes. It is a reflection of  world movements of all kinds, and of economic matters as well as political ones. The idea of a top-down foreign policy is, to me, utterly ludicrous.
Perhaps one of the worst things about this Bill is its gagging nature. To suggest that you cannot discuss and debate the issues that lie behind the Bill is horrendous. It is not what mature democracies do; it is what tyrannies do. I am sure the Minister is not in favour of tyranny— I know her well enough to be fully aware of that—but what she is doing this evening is presiding over something that is somewhat tyrannical.
Universities are not in the public sector. They are subject to regular ONS reviews regarding their status; there is one going on at the moment. The Bill is, in a sense, jumping over this review by suggesting that they are public bodies. The next thing that will happen is that a review of this sort will be effected by the Bill, and we will have universities in the public sector. That will be hugely damaging to their autonomy, which has been central to British universities since the war and, indeed, before. This would lead to all sort of practical disadvantages, such as the loss of autonomy, including in respect of borrowing and investment, which would become a matter for the Treasury. At one time, the Treasury ran the UGC, and that was not a terribly sensible approach. The Department for Education would be the body that decides what universities could do in this area. That would make it very difficult for them to access commercial borrowing. Is that what we want? Surely not.
As the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, said, it is extremely heavy-handed, overkill and, in any case, unnecessary. Can the Minister tell the Committee where the pressure has come from to introduce universities into the Bill? Is this from the imagination of Michael Gove, who invented the Bill? I cannot see it coming from anywhere else. Have the Government had any sensible consultation with UUK and other representatives of the higher education sector about whether universities should be in the Bill?

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, I have not spoken previously on the Bill and apologise to the Committee that I could not be here at Second Reading, but I have listened to the debates through the last several weeks. I will make just three points.
First, to pick up directly the point about foreign policy from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, United Kingdom universities are privileged among European countries to host some of the finest international relations departments in the world. The only international relations departments that perhaps rank as superior to those of some of our universities—including my alma mater, the London School of Economics—are those at the American universities. To say to your international relations scholars that they will suddenly have thought control through legislation, and will be unable to teach with the rigour of academic freedom that has made these departments as good as they are, would be astonishing. It would be beyond an own goal. Leaving aside the pertinent points made by noble Lords across the Chamber on the duties of the Office for Students—including the powerful points by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson—the idea that foreign policy should be subject to some kind of legislative parameters is  extraordinary and will stop us producing the calibre of diplomats that we have been lucky to have over many decades.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, talked about to what extent universities are public bodies. This is extraordinary. For at least the last 10 years, I have asked several questions in this Chamber about one or two aspects of the autonomy of universities, generally about student fees or the catastrophe that affected the universities superannuation pension scheme some years ago when the wrong calculations were made, which really disadvantaged junior academics. Every time, I was told from the Dispatch Box: “Universities are autonomous; we can’t possibly look into what’s happening to interest rates on student fees or the pension fund”. Suddenly, we now discover that they are more and more in the public sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said.
I should have declared an interest—everybody knows it—as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but I am speaking in a personal capacity. The public sector equality duty of course applies to universities, but the Equality and Human Rights Commission is also a human rights commission and has to look to Article 10 rights. It has worked closely with the Office for Students on some of these areas since it was established. I wonder what consideration the Government have given in what they have been saying, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, powerfully said, about on the one hand wanting absolute freedom of expression while on the other, within months, seeking to curtail it. It will be very interesting to hear what the Minister has to say.
Before concluding, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on making such a powerful speech. He is absolutely right. The reports I get, when speaking to Jewish organisations about anti-Semitic incidents, are that individual students are now finding themselves friendless, when university life is meant to be the exact opposite of that. I share his despair in that regard.

Lord Davies of Brixton: My Lords, I just want to ask the Minister a question relating to academic freedom. Paragraph 20 of the Explanatory Notes gives a quite qualified exposition of how academic freedom will not be affected by this scheme. It refers only to ending existing contracts and to a break because of the provisions under a particular statutory provision. It is a very narrow qualifying expression; we all hope that this Bill, were it to be passed, would not affect academic freedom.
Apart from that assurance, we have to rely on the suggestion implied, but not specifically set out anywhere, that investment and procurement decisions will not impinge on academic freedom. Can the Minister assure us that when decisions are made about an academic project, it will not impinge on the area that could be characterised as an investment or procurement decision, particularly when we come to the enforcement, where judicial review is out of any direct control and there are vexatious attempts to try to challenge a decision made on good academic grounds on the grounds of investment or procurement decisions?

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Willetts and others have queried whether there is any evidence of a problem. It may be true that there is not much evidence of actual BDS activities by universities to date, but it is certainly true that there is a problem of anti-Semitism on campuses. It may also be true, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said, that it is less acute than in the United States—most things are less acute here than in the United States—but I do not think that means we should ignore it. It is clear that the accelerating protests on campuses are having a deleterious effect on Jewish students on campuses. Indeed, the Union of Jewish Students said only last week:
“Jewish students are angry, they are tired, and they are hurt by the continuous torrent of antisemitic hatred on campus since October 7th”.
I am not sure that gives the Union of Jewish Students a veto on whether the Bill should go through, but it indicates that there is still a very real problem.
The current round of student protests—the encampments and related demands—do seem, as I have seen reported, to include BDS demands on the universities. As far as I am aware, none of the universities has yet succumbed and changed its policies on BDS, but at least one has given in to some other demands, such as renaming buildings and changing some other organisational arrangements, and we cannot be sure what universities will do in the longer run. The Bill would close the option of them ever implementing BDS policies and would therefore be one small step to closing that route off and helping to create an environment for Jewish students, who would be even more oppressed if the universities publicly announced BDS policies against them. I do not think it is a very big item, but I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, that the Bill does nothing. I think it does something towards closing off an avenue that universities might be tempted to go down in order to see off the undoubted nuisance of all these student protests.
I would just like to briefly say something about the ONS as well. The ONS reviews all sets of bodies that are on the borderline between the public and private sectors at regular intervals, and it does it in a careful way in accordance with international definitions. These are all careful considerations. It is clear that universities are in a grey area: they are public authorities for the Human Rights Act, are included in the Freedom of Information Act and were included in the Procurement Act that we considered last year. They are already subject to a lot of the public sector laws, and nothing is going to change that. I agree with my noble friend Lord Willetts that this Bill will not be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, but it is always legitimate to ask on which side of the line these bodies that exist half in and half out fall.
Just being classified by the ONS does not of itself lead to other consequences. There may well be further considerations down the line, but we certainly cannot stop the ONS doing the job that it is set up to do, which is to consider classifications in accordance with international guidelines,

Lord Leigh of Hurley: My Lords, it seems to me to be fundamental to this Bill that universities and other relevant bodies are included. We are not  talking about individual academics having their right to free speech being affected at all. We are talking about institutional behaviour. Yes, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, has pointed out, what happens in universities really matters. I also went on a trade trip to China with the vice-chancellors. I remember, because they were the ones sitting in business class. They are a very important part of the fabric of our society—

Lord Willetts: You were in first class—

Lord Leigh of Hurley: Possibly first class. No one can forget that academia is not immune to bigotry. Let us recall that Heidelberg University in Germany was no less prestigious than any UK university in its day. In the 1920s, it was the centre of liberal thinking. A decade later, a mob of Heidelberg students burned Jewish and other so-called “corrupt” books in the Universitätsplatz. Jewish students and Jewish academics were banned, its faculty developed pseudo-academic fields such as race theory, eugenics and forced euthanasia. Heidelberg was led by administrators who lacked moral leadership—and we all know how this ended.
It cannot be right that students at universities around the world feel unprotected and threatened. Most ironically, only a few years ago, children of Jewish friends of mine were telling their parents they did not feel comfortable going to a UK university, so they applied to go to one in the United States. The appalling lack of leadership in some US universities has quite rightly led to the removal of their leadership in some famous cases. We are all watching Columbia University, apparently led by the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, most carefully to see whether it can exhibit proper leadership against the vile intimidation and abuse.
In the UK, we have seen many universities fail to take proper action. I will cite some alarming incidents indicative of this unsafe environment. For example, in Leeds there was the attack on a Jewish chaplain, a rabbi, the sit-in at the Parkinson building, the daubing of the Jewish student centre and the encampment outside of the student union. Apart from the absurdity of the protesters protesting against an occupation by occupying university buildings, the demonstrations themselves are misplaced—and, as at other universities, such as King’s College, Cambridge, are causing huge distress to Jewish students, as has been noted.
Despite very sterling work by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, it is endemic. In Birmingham, students called for “Zionists off our campus”. We know what they mean, “No Jews here”—as they did in Heidelberg. A while ago, in December 2021, City University students, among others, demanded a BDS ban. It was stopped only because the Charity Commission ruled that this was in breach of its charitable status. Interestingly, the leader of the call for BDS there, Shaima Dallali, was subsequently elected president of the National Union of Students before she was suspended for anti-Semitism. The connection between the call for BDS and anti-Semitism is staring us in the face

Lord Davies of Brixton: Today, it has been reported that she has been compensated for unfair dismissal—so I do not think the point quite works as the noble Lord intends.

Lord Leigh of Hurley: I thank the noble Lord for telling us that. I had not heard that and I will check it out. None the less, she was dismissed for anti-Semitic behaviour, so it is suggested. We know what lies behind much of BDS. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and my noble friend Lord Johnson, the BDS movement, as he said, has taken credit and claimed it scored a victory in respect of divestments by Manchester and procurement by King’s College Cambridge and Southampton. It is true that the UJS’s previous president raised objections to the Bill, but that was before 7 October and before the heat turned up so dramatically. It certainly voted unanimously against BDS.
Most recently, we have seen student demands that Goldsmiths College rename a hall after a Palestinian, give scholarships to Palestinian students and participate in BDS. It looks like the college has agreed to all these demands without carefully considering the impact this might have—again showing absolute failure of leadership. Where does this lead? I am told today by people at Goldsmiths that there is now a movement to prohibit students entering the library unless they sign up to supporting BDS.
In my opinion, this Bill will help those in leadership positions in the above examples and at other universities. It will help them stand up to these outrageous demands by making it clear that intimidation is no longer allowed, and they have no choice but to refuse to enact BDS because the law now demands this. Universities cannot hide from their responsibilities. They should of course be focusing on their core public duty of providing quality higher education and undertaking excellent research while protecting those on campus who are currently threatened by the proponents of BDS with intimidatory anti-Semitic behaviour.

Lord Shipley: My Lords, the Minister will have listened very carefully and I hope concluded that she has heard several notable contributions on this group, to which the only conclusion, in my view, is that this amendment should be accepted by the Government. I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley. In the case of the noble Baroness, I think her argument was that the problem of anti-Semitism on campus is too high, and one would agree. The problem I have with her conclusion is that this Bill would actually make it worse. It would make community cohesion more difficult. It would be worse.
The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, talked about institutional behaviour and said that the institutional behaviour in universities would be improved by this Bill. He gave a number of examples, and one has to take those seriously and look at them. I will just say that it is a very dangerous policy to generalise from the particular and to say that across all our universities and higher education institutions, that pattern of behaviour is being followed, because I do not actually believe it is true.
I take very seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said. I think he made an extremely important contribution. He basically said that the Bill does nothing in the context of universities. There has been no successful BDS campaign, he said. The Union of Jewish Students does not want the Bill, I recall him saying.
I have to say that I prefer the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, in this situation because this is so important to get right, and this Bill is going to make things worse. As the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said, it is not relevant in practice to decision-making. There is not actually a problem in universities, and the problem has never been properly defined by those who believe there is one.
There are still three fundamental reasons why this amendment should be accepted by the Government. Universities should maintain their autonomy from state interference and from government. A university is not a public body, and this Bill conflicts with the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. For all the reasons that we have heard in all the contributions that we have had, the fact remains that this Bill has not been thought through properly. A very important question was asked, I think by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, about where the idea came from in the first place for universities to be added into the Bill. I have not understood why they should be because they are not public bodies.
This has been a helpful debate. I am clear. This Committee has been doing the job it is here to do, which is to examine the evidence, but the evidence is overwhelmingly that the Government should accept this amendment.

Baroness Chapman of Darlington: My Lords, this has been a helpful discussion. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for tabling his amendment, and I was very glad to be able to add my name on behalf of these Benches. There seem to be two parts to this case. One is that this simply will not work. The other is that universities are not public bodies and that this in some way is another penny on the scale towards making them public bodies, which is something I think that any us who are in any way involved in universities would seek to resist at every opportunity. I should declare my interest as chancellor of the University of Teesside.
When you have two Tory former Universities Ministers and the Government’s anti-Semitism adviser saying in the strongest terms that they fundamentally disagree with this legislation’s approach to this issue and support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, it is a wise Minister who reflects on that and perhaps takes it away and considers it a little bit further.
I can see why, when the Government conceived this Bill, they included universities because, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, quite rightly reminded us, there is a problem on some campuses for Jewish students and Jewish members of staff, and the atmosphere has deteriorated since October 7, in particular. There should be nobody in this Committee or anywhere else who dismisses that and thinks that there is no problem that we ought to set our minds to try to resolve because it is not right that in the name of free speech or anything else we allow that to continue. That must be tackled. My point to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, is that the calls that he mentioned, such as about the naming of lecture theatres and the awarding of scholarships to Palestinian students, are made by those doing the protests, the sit-ins and all the other activities that he  talked about. He mentioned Goldsmiths specifically. I have a copy of the agreement that was reached between the senior management team at Goldsmiths and the students’ organisation that I think is called Goldsmiths for Palestine. It is seven items long. Many things have been discussed, but only one section looks in any way at investment, divestment or boycotts. The rest are things that would never be within the scope of the Bill.
I am afraid that when the noble Lord, Lord Mann, says that the Bill will not do anything about these protests, he is probably right. I have not spent a lot of my life sitting on protests or going on marches, but I have done a bit, and the fact that what you are asking for, or demanding, is unlikely to happen—or is perhaps even legally impossible—at the point at which you are making the demand does nothing to stop you making it. That is the way protest works—we can like it or not; it is just a fact of life.
Many of the demands being made are nothing to do with BDS any more. BDS has been around for a very long time, as we all know, but taking away universities’ ability to succumb to these campaigns—not that any of them have—will do nothing to improve safety on campuses; it could make things worse. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, is shaking his head. I hope that he will recognise that I am being genuine about this; I want to see this resolved as much as he does. However, I do not think that telling protesters that we are preventing universities taking the decision they wish them to take will mean that they stop making their demands, or that the temperature goes down. Protesters feel that they are right and are acting in the interests of humanity. We can agree or disagree on how they do that and the language and methods they use. We can have a discussion about that, and perhaps we should, but the Bill will not improve the situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and others have said, there is a risk that it could make it worse. I do not want us to take another step down a path that could end up making this worse when there is still an opportunity to work together and find an alternative means of making improvements that we all wish to see.
I do not think that the theory that the Government have put forward—that if you remove a university’s ability to adopt BDS, the protests somehow diminish, and that life becomes more tolerable and safer—is realistic. That is my main reason for wanting universities to be removed from the Bill.
I also support the arguments made by the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Johnson, about the independence of universities; they are very important. Our universities are feeling somewhat beleaguered and got at by this Government. There does not seem to be a lot of understanding or support, and they would argue that many of the challenges they are now facing have been made worse by the actions of this Government and the attitude that they seem to take towards universities—wanting to plant them front and centre of a culture war. Our universities are wonderful institutions. They bring huge investment into our country. I am sure that we are all immensely proud of them. They employ a great number of people. They bring jobs and prosperity to parts of the country that desperately  need them. They are inspiring and educating the next generation of engineers, pharmacists and doctors, and we thank them for all that they do.
I say to the Minister that to go further down this path, without pause, would be a mistake. A far better approach to tackling this problem, which we all accept needs to be addressed, is to work alongside universities —my party would be part of this if that would be helpful—to work out the most effective way of dealing with this. The Bill will not work, and there is a risk that it could make the situation worse for Jewish students.

Lord Leigh of Hurley: I heard what the noble Baroness said very clearly, but does she agree that Goldsmiths has now agreed to take on a policy of BDS, and that if the Bill had passed, it would not have been able to succumb to intimidatory pressure so to do?

Baroness Chapman of Darlington: I have the agreement that Goldsmiths made in front of me, and the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, is right. One of the six issues concerns BDS, but I suggest that he read the wording very carefully. It says that the senior management team will raise concerns with the college’s ethical investment fund manager; it is not saying that it will enact any divestment at this stage. I read the agreement very carefully, not least because I thought that it may have made a decision that undermined my case this evening. I would be very happy to meet with the noble Lord and discuss this further, because it leaves the door open, perhaps, to Goldsmiths taking the decisions that he fears it might. It does not look as if it has done so far, but even if it does not and were prevented from even discussing that, there would still be the other six elements that were driving the campaigns, the sit-ins and the activities on campus which were so problematic.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, who has sat patiently throughout today for her contribution.
I do not think that sufficient weight has been given to the pressure on universities to engage in boycotts and divestment campaigns at this time. I am disturbed, as I am sure we all are, by the violence we have seen in the US over the past week, and the threat that that poses for the safety of students and their ability even to complete their exams. We cannot risk this in the UK and the associated intimidation of Jewish students. Sadly, we have begun to see a fresh wave of student demonstrations at our UK universities, including protest camps set up in Oxford and Cambridge, a deterioration that the noble Baroness acknowledged. These protesters have, I understand, been demanding that their universities cut financial ties with Israeli companies.
My noble friends Lord Willetts and Lord Johnson asked about examples of BDS activity in universities, and I have answered questions on this, as has been said. But another example was highlighted this evening by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, that of Goldsmith University, which has agreed to demands made by one of its student-led groups, Goldsmiths for Palestine, to review its ethical investment policy. I am glad that further discussions might take place, and I would be interested to see the document.
As my noble friend Lady Noakes said, there is a problem of anti-Semitism in universities, and we need to take this small step to head off BDS, which is a manifesto commitment, to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. We are clear that universities should be in scope of the Bill, despite the oratory and expertise of my noble friend Lord Willetts. We have worked together on good government for many decades, and his contribution is welcome.
No noble Lord wants to inhibit the freedom of students and individual academics to express their views on the conflict in the Middle East, or, indeed, on any other difficult conflict, in a civil manner. Universities have always been the natural home for open debate, and that will continue. There is no thought control—we are talking about public authorities’ investment and procurement decisions when focused on a particular country or territory. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, would not herself be affected and university pensions are not in fact within scope.
However, it is the case that universities are part of public life. They have a responsibility to deliver education for their students, and in this context the Bill strikes a reasonable balance. It bans universities from carrying out their own boycott and sanction campaigns when they are exercising their public functions of investment and procurement. It does not deal with the private acts of individual academics, nor does it interfere with the private commercial activity of university bodies. However, it is a sad fact that in 2023, the Community Security Trust recorded 182 anti-Semitic incidents in the context of the higher education sector, an increase of 203%.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, particularly for his fervent advocacy regarding anti-Semitism. The Education Secretary is hosting a round table at No. 10 on 9 May with a number of vice-chancellors to discuss how we can prevent and crack down on anti-Semitism on campus.
Where student unions and pressure groups demand that universities engage in BDS campaigns, this Bill will help universities remain focused on their core public duties, rather than becoming agents for a pressure group. Indeed, the Bill will discourage these campaigners’ demands in the first place by removing the chance of success.
I hope this provides some context on why the Bill should apply to universities. It is supported by representatives of the Jewish community in the UK, including the Jewish Leadership Council.
A number of reasonable points have been raised across the Committee; I will briefly respond to a few. The Bill does not affect the ability of individual academics to express their views in their private capacity. It will not restrict a member of staff with no role in the university’s decision-making process from stating—on their personal social media, or even in a lecture—their personal view that the university should be boycotting or divesting from this country or that country.
We have made it clear in the Explanatory Notes that higher education institutions will not face a conflict with their existing statutory duties on academic freedom. The Bill is not intended to prevent a higher education  provider in England from deciding to terminate a collaboration with a foreign university on the grounds of academic freedom. The Bill is about ensuring that universities and higher education institutions do not have a particular matter of foreign policy in their investment or procurement decisions. I cannot emphasise enough that the Government are fiercely committed to protecting freedom of expression on campuses and we do not intend to broaden the ban beyond this.
My noble friend Lord Willetts asked whether the Bill will prohibit universities from making a statement saying that they will act in accordance with the FCDO’s business risk guidance on the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Bill will not prohibit such a statement. The Bill does not prohibit public authorities from considering the risks of doing business with companies in any country or territory. The Bill also does not interfere with the private commercial activities of universities. These could include providing conference facilities, maintaining office spaces, and making decisions related to commercially funded research.
Let me also address the concern about statistical classification, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Johnson. I can assure the House that my officials have consulted on this point with HM Treasury, which liaises with the ONS on classification matters. We are content that the Bill restricts the investment and procurement decisions of universities only in a limited way. HMT’s assessment is that the fact that the Bill may be applicable to a body would not automatically affect its classification by the ONS.
My noble friend also asked how the Bill would operate alongside the freedom of speech Act, something that was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. As I have said, the BDS Bill is not about restricting freedom of speech. It ensures that public authorities function as a shared space for all and focus on their core purpose rather than taking partisan stances that undermine community cohesion. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that my officials did discuss the Bill with Universities UK prior to its introduction.
In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, on academic collaborations, the Bill will apply only to investment and procurement decisions made by public authorities. Academic collaborations will be caught by the ban only if they involve investment and procurement decisions made in that way.
I am sorry to have taken time to answer the questions raised. I put it to my noble friend Lord Willetts, and the Committee, that universities should be open spaces for academics and students to debate alternative points of view. I think we are all agreed on that. It is inappropriate and divisive for universities to take a side on foreign policy matters in their corporate capacity; this Bill takes a measured approach to preventing them from doing just that. I hope he will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Willetts: I am grateful to the Minister for engaging with the points that have been made. I will certainly want to look at some of her observations carefully; the business investment guidelines, for example, are potentially a very important concession and piece of advice.
However, I think the mood on all sides of the Committee is one of deep scepticism about whether these provisions really will help and have any significant effect when it comes to higher education. We have heard powerful interventions from my noble friend Lord Johnson, and a particularly powerful point from the noble Lord, Lord Mann, with his long history of engagement and challenges in fighting anti-Semitism.
Perhaps I may briefly pick up on two points. The question from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on where this comes from goes to the heart of this legislation. This is American legislation. This is an American culture war brought to the UK. Universities are involved in this because in the US they have massive endowments. The politics of BDS is about D, above all: investment. What has happened is that the provisions go from the highly charged American debate about the investment of over $800 billion, the size of American endowments—that is why the American neocons go for BDS provisions in universities—and have been incorporated into this Bill, which now comes over here and those provisions are replicated.
This cuts both ways. It is not a straightforward point. The reality is that British university endowments in total are probably 1% of American endowments. So all the charged politics and the significant financial decisions, as one tries to argue politically about investing $800 billion, is not quite so charged if it is perhaps  $8 billion in total. However, it is also the case that one can predict, and you can see it happening, that some universities have endowments and this matter will be increasingly raised in those tent cities on some of our campuses. “Will you promise that you won’t invest in companies doing business with Israel?” I can see that happening as a cause.
This is where the inclusion of the Occupied Territories gets very complicated. I may say so, it was a strategic blunder in the formulation of this legislation because, by including the Occupied Territories, where there is explicit government guidance already, “Be very careful about investing in them”, that totally muddles up the issue. So I suspect that the way all this will go is that the government concession will be on removing the Occupied Territories from the provisions. It would be great if the Government would also consider more widely what they are doing on universities. This is an area where, again, the British debate is so different from the American debate.
On the ONS issue, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made a fair point. This is absolutely not automatic, but we are aware of what happened with further education colleges. That is why this is such a highly charged issue for higher education; it is because FE colleges have already been through this twice. The issue is control. At what point do things look controlling? Normally the ONS gives the Government time to correct and reverse the measures that might pull a body into the public sector. If this were to happen with universities, one very much hopes that the Government would try to pull them out and then they would probably bring before the House a long list of control measures that were being rescinded in order to get those bodies healthily out of the public sector. I have a  modest bet that this would be one of the many pieces of legislation on the chopping block in order to reverse the danger.
In the light of the Minister’s comments, I certainly beg leave to withdraw the amendment now, but we may find ourselves returning to it at a later stage.
Amendment 21 withdrawn.
Amendments 22 to 26 not moved.
House resumed.
House adjourned at 10.09 pm.